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 :

Rejection of refund claim - time barred

kiran kujur

I have debited E.cess from the amount deposited under BED head of Account in 2007 . later in 2008,audit team objected and advised to deposit the duty amount afresh. accordingly i have deposited the said amount in E.Cess head of account and applied for refund of E.Cess payment made in 2007. The department rejected the refund application on ground of applicability of time bar u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. pl suggest me is it a case of refund of duty u/s 11B and is limitation of one year period is applicable. Relevant case laws may kindly be referred.

Refund Claim Rejected Due to Time Bar Under Section 11B of Central Excise Act; Argued as Deposit, Not Duty Payment. A query was raised regarding the rejection of a refund claim for an amount debited under the Basic Excise Duty (BED) head in 2007, which was later objected to by an audit team in 2008. The department rejected the refund application citing the time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Respondents advised that the earlier action was not incorrect and suggested treating the deposit as made under protest. They recommended filing a claim and arguing that the amount was a deposit, not a duty payment, thus not subject to the one-year limitation period. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues