SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
Central Excise - Refund - Demand u/s 11A without review u/s 35E of order granting refund is not sustainable - Demand set aside: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

HYDERABAD, JUNE 20, 2016: THE appellants are engaged in manufacture of leather tanning chemicals and are registered with Central Excise Department. They filed application for refund of central excise duty on the discounts given to dealers. The original authority passed Order-in-Original sanctioning the refund for different periods.

Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to appellant proposing to recovery the sanctioned refunds. The original authority adjudicated the matter and confirmed the recovery of sanctioned refund holding that these are erroneous refunds. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by original authority. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal.

The appellant contended that the order passed by original authority sanctioning the refund is an adjudicated order. Revenue has not filed any appeal against these orders. It is mandatory under Section 35 E of Central Excise Act, 1944 that the order passed by the adjudicating authority has to be received by a superior authority. Without review and filing of appeal, the Assistant Commissioner cannot pass an order to recover the amount which was sanctioned by passing an adjudication order.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

+ The issue that came up for consideration in the case of M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs Cestat, Chennai - 2016-TIOL-676-HC-Mad-CX before the Hon'ble High Court was whether department can recover refund by invoking provisions of Section 11 A without exercising the power of review under Section 35 E and the order of refund not being reviewed by a superior officer. The Court referred to the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Ltd - 2015-TIOL-2127-HC-AP-CX to observe that when no appeal was filed against order under Section 11B, the department cannot take recourse to Section 11A.

+ The proposition laid in the case of M/s Eveready Industries India (P) Ltd case is squarely applicable to the case in hand, the fact and issue being identical. In view thereof, it is held that the impugned orders are not sustainable. The same are set aside.

(See 2016-TIOL-1467-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST