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>Refund claim under Central Excise Act not time-barred; appeal dismissed for lack of legal issues.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III Versus KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD.</h3> The High Court held that the respondent's claim for refund under the Central Excise Act was not time-barred. The Court found that the refund application ... Refund-Limitation- The respondent is engaged in manufacturing of motors and transformers falling under heading 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Refund held as admissible in impugned order on goods returned by buyer. Department contending that refund claim hit by time bar. Held that- refund claim held by all authorities as within time and filed only after receiving goods back. Refund claim not barred by time. Issues:Claim for refund barred by limitations and provisions of Central Excise Act not considered.Analysis:The case involved the appellant, who contended that the claim for refund made by the respondent was barred by limitations and that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act were not considered. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing motors and transformers, had sold certain material to the Indian Railway and paid duty on it. Subsequently, the transformer supplied was returned, and the respondent requested a refund of the duty paid. The Department contended that the respondent was not eligible for a refund as the goods were received back. Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), and the CESTAT all allowed the refund application. The main argument of the appellant was that the claim for refund was time-barred, but the authorities consistently held that the application was within the time limit and made after receiving the returned goods.The High Court, after considering the orders of all the authorities, held that the application for refund by the respondent was not barred by time. Therefore, the Court concluded that no substantial questions of law arose in the appeal and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The judgment emphasized that the authorities had correctly determined that the refund application was timely and valid, thereby upholding the decisions made in favor of the respondent throughout the appeals process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
