M/s Trimurti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Kanpur
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 995 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
APPEAL Nos. E/70520 & 70572/2018-EX[SM] – Final Order Nos. 71388-71389 / 2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial )
None for Appellant
Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh ( Dy. Commr. ) AR for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Archana Wadhwa
As nobody appeared for the appellant in spite of sufficient advance notices having been sent to the appellant, I have heard learned AR appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned orders. As both the appeals are arising out of the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), I proceed to dispose of both the appeals by common order.
2. As per facts on record appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Chewing Tobacco and were discharging their duty liability in terms of Section 3A of C
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
heir appeal by holding that no interest liability would arise.
4. Based upon the said decision of the Tribunal in respect of the appellant's Delhi Unit they filed refund claim of interest amount of Rs. 4,08,718/- in one appeal and of Rs. 2,99,027/- in second appeal for the period as referred above. On 23.09.2016, the said refund claims stand rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority as also by Appellate Authority on the point of time bar.
5. The assessee's contention is that inasmuch as the law was declared by the Tribunal vide the above referred two decisions in May, 2015 and November, 2015, in respect of their Delhi Unit, the refund claims filed by them immediately thereafter has to be held as falling within the limitation period. They have also submitted that inasmuch there was no requirement of payment of interest, the Revenue cannot be allowed to retain the said illegal levy, without any authority of law and should have refunded the same to the assessee, without raising th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e Central Excise Act. Admittedly in the present case, the refund claims filed by the appellant is beyond the normal period of limitation of one year.
7. The issue is as to whether the same would be hit by the bar of limitation or the same had to be allowed in the light of the Tribunal decisions in the appellant's Delhi Unit case. As already observed the present appellant did not keep the matter alive by filing any appeal against the confirmation of interest or deposit of the same. All the refunds, have to be claimed in terms of Section 11 B of the Act, which prescribed a period within which such claims should have been filed by an assessee, subject to some exceptions. Admittedly in the present matter, the appellant's case is not covered by such exceptions like payment of duty under protest or the assessments being provisionally. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. reported at 1998 (98) ELT 583 (S.C.) has held that the authorities working under the Act ar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =