News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
Cus - Differential duty paid under protest & refund claimed in July 1989 - Refund granted in Aug 2002 - Appellant entitled to interest u/s 11BB from 27.08.1995 till date of refund: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 07, 2019: THE appellant had imported Cable Jointing kits, the classification of which was claimed under CSH 8547 of the CTA, 1975.

Revenue disagreed and classified the product under CSH 3926.

Differential duty was paid Under Protest and subsequently refund was claimed on 06.07.1989.

The appellant succeeded on the issue of classification before the Bombay High Court and, thereafter, filed a reminder letter dated 06.04.1994.

The said refund claim was rejected by the Revenue as barred by limitation.

In the matter of the appeal filed, the Tribunal remanded the matter, in January 2001, to the Commissioner(A) who decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

A stay application was filed by the Revenue but the same was rejected by CESTAT on 01.07.2002.

Consequently, a refund claim of Rs.72,46,441/- was sanctioned to the appellant.

Thereafter, the appellant made an application on 18.03.2004 seeking interest for the period from 1.7.1995 to 27.08.2002 on the delayed refund amounting to Rs.70,46,363/-.

This claim was rejected by the lower authorities and, therefore, the appellant is again before the CESTAT. They rely on the apex court decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. -   2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX.  

The AR supported the order of the lower authorities.

After extracting the provisions of s.11BB of the CEA, 1944, and the apex court decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), the Bench observed -

"7. Applying the principles laid down in the above case, we find that the appellant had filed refund claim on 06.07.1989 and reminder on 06.04.1994 after Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in their favour. Hence, they are eligible to interest on expiry of three months from the date when the Finance Bill, 1995 received the assent of the President of India i.e. on 26.05.1995. Consequently, interest is available to the appellant from 27.08.1995 till the date, the amount was paid to them."

The Appeal was allowed.

(See 2019-TIOL-405-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS