M\/s Steel Exchange India Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GST
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1410 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 24-5-2018
Appeal No. E\/31177\/2017 – A\/30588\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
\n[Order per: M.V. Ravindran]
\nThis appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZEXCUS- 002-APP-035-17-18 dated 31.07.2017.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the appellant herein had filed refund claims of the amounts paid on Customs duty i.e. Education Cess on coun<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n On these two grounds, the refund claims were rejected. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Steel Exchange India Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GSTCentral Excise2018 (6) TMI 1410 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 24-5-2018Appeal No. E\/31177\/2017 – A\/30588\/2018Central ExciseMr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. … Continue reading “M\/s Steel Exchange India Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Learned Counsel submits as regards the limitation, this Tribunal in the case of Duraline India Pvt. Ltd., [2008-TIOL-1966- CESTAT-MUM.] has held that re-submission of refund claims after 13 months of original submission has to be treated as claims filed within the stipulated time period; and also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Visen Fabrics [2004-TIOL-625-CESTAT-MUM] for the same proposition.
\n6. Learned Departmental Representative after drawing my attention to the facts reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
\n7. As regards the rejection of the refund claim filed and on the reason of limitation, I find that both the lower authorities have erred i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n