Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

Delay in filing application for refund of duty

wig sinbad

The manufacturer is eligible for refund of duty deposited ; PLA - Central Excise in terms of Notification 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002. The manufacturer in terms of Para 2B(a) of the notification referred to above was expected to file the claim for refund before the 7th of the next month. However he has filed the application for refund of PLA belatedly. The application was to be filed by 07/06/2015. However the application was filed on 24/06/2015. The refund was issued by the Department. However subsequently the Revenue has gone in appeal before the LD CCE (Appeals) stating that the refund was wrongly issed. Please advise on the manufacturers response and any case laws which favour the manufacturer.

Manufacturer Misses Refund Deadline Under Notification 56/2002-CE; Revenue Appeals Refund Due to Late Submission A manufacturer eligible for a refund under Notification 56/2002-CE filed the refund application late, missing the deadline of June 7, 2015, by submitting it on June 24, 2015. Although the refund was initially granted, the Revenue appealed, arguing it was wrongly issued due to the late submission. The Department cited case laws to support its position. The manufacturer is concerned about financial viability if the refund must be returned. A participant in the discussion suggests that the Department's argument could be challenged, as the issue concerns timing rather than a declaration requirement. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues