TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 claims not time-barred under Central Excise Act post-1991 amendment. Customs to provide automatic refunds after final assessment.</h1> The Tribunal held that refund claims under the Central Excise Act were not time-barred post-amendment in 1991, emphasizing no time limitation for duty ... Refund - Finalisation of provisional assessment Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the time limitation for filing refund claims u/s 27 of the Central Excise Act, the automatic entitlement to refund u/s 18(2) of the Customs Act, and the determination of burden of duty passed on to customers.Time Limitation for Refund Claims:The appellant filed refund claims beyond the stipulated 6-month period from the final assessment of duties on bills of entry. The Commissioner rejected the claims as time-barred. The appellant argued that post-amendment of Section 27 in 1991, there is no specific 'relevant date' for filing refund applications. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the appellant contended that refund arising from finalization of provisional assessment should be granted automatically without time limitations. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that no limitation applies to duty recovery or refund post-finalization of assessment.Automatic Entitlement to Refund:The appellant asserted that the Customs Department should automatically provide refunds without requiring formal applications due to the finalization of provisional assessment. The Tribunal supported this argument, stating that duty recovery or refund following final assessment must be given suo motu by authorities, without time constraints. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments to support this position.Burden of Duty Passed on to Customers:The respondent argued that the burden of duty passing on to customers should be determined based on whether the price of the final product considered the duty burden on inputs. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing a Bombay High Court judgment that unjust enrichment does not apply when goods are used in manufacturing another product and not sold directly. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the grant of consequential refund to the appellant based on these considerations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
