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
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2016 (6) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence and are engaged in manufacturing of earth moving equipment, rail coaches, trailers and defence aggregates at the factories situated at Bangalore, KGF and Mysore. The appellant company had discharged excise duty and education cess @ 16% and 2% on equipment viz BH100-Dumper bearing Sl No. 1013,1014, 1015 & 1016 under various excise invoices anticipating that the equipment could be cleared immediately on discharge of duty but the equipment could not be cleared from the factory for certain reasons beyond the control of the company and finally these equipments were cleared from the factory in May an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... erred in law in holding that the refund is barred by limitation. She further submitted that the learned Commissioner has wrongly invoked the principle of unjust enrichment in the present case. The learned Commissioner wrongly held that the appellant company failed to produce any documentary evidence that the company has not collected any amounts from their customers towards refund amount claimed. She also submitted that in the present case, appellant company which is a Central Govt Public Undertaking produced the extract of ledger and the same is the conclusive proof that the disputed amount has not been passed on to the buyers. The appellant relied upon the decision of CESTAT New Delhi in the case of Maruthi Udyog Ltd reported in 2003(155....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to reproduce the provisions of Section 11B providing claim for refund of duty which is reproduced herein. SECTION [11B. Claim for refund of [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty]. " (1) Any person claiming refund of any [duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty] may make an application for refund of such [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] to the [Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise] before the expiry of [one year] [from the relevant date] [[in such form and manner] as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to estab....