TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Special rate refund application under Notification 20/2007-CE cannot be rejected as time-barred for 2009-17 period</h1> <h3>M/s. Duroply Industries Limited (Formerly ‘M/s. Sarda Plywood Industries Limited’) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax</h3> CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal challenging rejection of application for fixation of special rate of refund of central excise duty under Notification ... Application for fixation of special rate of refund of central excise duty in term of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25th April 2007 rejected - rejection on the ground that it was time barred - HELD THAT:- The Application filed by the Appellant, for fixation of special rate of refund of central excise duty in term of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25th April 2007, was rejected on the ground that it was time barred. It is found that the present case is no longer res-integra as CESTAT Kolkata in the case of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh [2023 (10) TMI 991 - CESTAT KOLKATA] dealt with identical issue and held that the pecial value addition applications filed by the assessee for the period 2009-10 to 2016-17 after 30th September of the same year cannot be considered as time barred. The applications filed by the appellant for fixation of special rate in this case is not time barred. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable and hence the same is set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues:Appeal against rejection of application for special rate of refund of central excise duty as time-barred.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing plywood and allied products, filed an application for special rate of refund under Notification No. 20/2007-CE. The application was rejected as time-barred by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant contended that similar cases were decided in their favor by CESTAT Kolkata and cited precedents of Hindustan Unilever Limited and Godrej Consumer Products Limited. The appellant argued that the applications were filed within the stipulated time frame and should not be considered time-barred.The Tribunal noted that CESTAT Kolkata had previously ruled in favor of the appellants in similar cases, emphasizing that applications filed after 30th September of the same year cannot be deemed time-barred. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. V.V.F. Limited and the judgment of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Jyoty Labs to support their decision. The Tribunal held that all applications were filed within the prescribed time limit and, therefore, could not be rejected on the grounds of limitation.Relying on the precedents and legal principles established in previous cases, the Tribunal concluded that the applications filed by the appellant for fixation of special rates were not time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, holding that the applications for special rate of refund were not time-barred. The judgment was based on established legal principles and precedents set by previous cases, ensuring that the appellant's appeal was successful.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
