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>Tribunal upholds Assistant Collector's decision on refund claim for man-made fabrics</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY Versus AMBICA SILK MILLS</h3> COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY Versus AMBICA SILK MILLS - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 460 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay regarding refund of duty and demand raised by the department.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 179/72, dated 24-7-1972 regarding concession in duty for man-made fabrics.3. Barred by time for filing a refund claim.4. Failure to provide evidence to support the case.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against the Collector (Appeals) decision, where the Collector accepted the assessee's appeal seeking a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 982.44 and Rs. 1677.11. The department had also raised a demand for duty of Rs. 2645.40, confirmed by the Assistant Collector, which the Collector set aside. The dispute involved two original orders, one dealing with the refund claim and the other with a show cause notice for duty demand.2. The first order-in-original dated 19th March, 1983 addressed the refund claim. The assessee had cleared man-made fabrics after cutting fents, claiming a duty concession under Notification No. 179/72, dated 24-7-1972. The department found discrepancies and demanded payment. The Collector, after hearing, concluded that the fabrics were cleared after cutting, denying the refund claim.3. The second order-in-original dated 30-3-1983 related to a demand raised in a show cause notice. The Assistant Collector found that the fabrics were not cleared as lump packing but after cutting fents, leading to a demand of Rs. 2645.40. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the assessee's plea, stating there was no evidence of cutting fents in the records, and allowed the refund claim.4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting the refund claim was time-barred and lacked evidence supporting the claim. The Assistant Collector's findings were deemed correct, as evidence showed the fabrics were cleared after cutting. The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Collector's orders, rejecting the Collector (Appeals) decision and allowing the Revenue's appeals.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the legal aspects and findings of the Tribunal regarding the refund claim, duty demands, interpretation of the notification, time limitation for claims, and the importance of providing evidence in support of claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
