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
 
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
   

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