Pradeep Jain - Chartered Accountant

PJ/Case Laws/2009-10/13

Case Laws

Central Excise Section:

Case: - Jocil Limited v/s CC&CE, Guntur

Citation: - 2009 (92) RLT 776 (CESTAT-Ban.)

Issue: - Penalty can not be imposed on taking credit suo-moto which was reversed earlier.

Brief Facts: - Appellants are manufacturers of toilet soap, soap for other than toilet purpose, stearic acid and other excisable goods. They availed Cenvat Credit on various inputs and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. During scrutiny, it was found that on finalization of ER-1, appellants had taken credit of excess duty paid in PLA. Department initiated proceedings against them on the ground that in terms of Section 11B, they were required to file for refund claim. Lower Authority disallowed credit taken and confirmed demand of duty under Section 11A (1) alongwith interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, the Commissioner (A) held that there was no reason to interfere with order imposing penalty under Rule 25 for violation of Central Excise Rules. Appellants have come before the Tribunal in this appeal.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Appellant contended that they have paid excess duty and took credit of the same in monthly ER-1 Returns and PLA. It is pleaded that on bona fide belief, appellants have taken credit. Reliance was placed on decision in Tide Water Oil Company v/s CCE, Chennai [2002 (52) RLT 463 (CEGAT-Chennai)]. They were of the opinion that for duty paid in excess by way of debt in RG 23 A, the assessee can take credit of Modvat with simple intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise.

Respondent’s Contentions: - Revenue has contended that where excess duty is paid, proper course would be to file refund claim under Section 11B and the assessee should not take suo moto credit. Reliance was placed on decision given in the case of BDH Industries ltd v/s CCE (Appeals), Mumbai-I [2008 (87) RLT 566 (CESTAT-LB)].

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the appellants had not committed any of the offences for which penalty under Section 11AC and under Rule 25 was prescribed. None of the said alleged offences were proved against them. The appellants had sought objections before taking suo-moto credit of excess paid duty amounts. From the cited case laws it appears that there were different views on the issue and that is why the matter was referred to the Larger Bench. In such cases, malafide cannot be alleged. Contention of appellant about bona fide belief is accepted. Accordingly, penalty under Rule 25 was not warranted. Penalty set aside.

Decision: - Appeal allowed accordingly.

*****

Case: - CCE, Thane-II v/s Aries Pharmaceuticals

Citation: - 2009 (93) RLT 749 (CESTAT-Mum.)

Issue: - Reversal of Cenvat credit means not taking of credit. As such, once reversal is done for proportion of exempted goods then reversal @ 10% under Rule 6 is not warranted.

Brief Facts: - Respondent-assessee was engaged in manufacture of pharmaceutical products. Show Cause notices were issued to them on the ground that they have availed cenvat credit on certain common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as certain exempted goods and that they have not maintained separate account in respect of the receipt/use of said inputs and also have not reversed an amount equal to 8% of the price of the exempted goods at the time of clearance from their factory as required under Rule 57CC and/or Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The period involved in the case is 22.10.1996 to 31.03.2001. The Commissioner (A) held that the records of respondent indicated that separate accounts had been maintained about the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. It was held that respondent had substantially complied with the provisions of Rule 57CC/57AD and they did not come within the mischief of Rule 57CC/57AD and there was no justification in demanding reversal of 8% of the price of exempted goods. To come to this conclusion, reliance was placed on the report of Assistant Commissioner (Preventive) who had verified the records of the respondent. Revenue has come in appeal against the said order.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Revenue contended that the fact of reversal of credit by respondent clearly established that they were using some of the modvat availed on inputs, in exempted products also. The respondent has not complied with the other requirement of Rule 57CC that “credit shall not be taken on such input” has not been complied with by the assessee. It was further contended that mere remark in RG 23 Part-II about reversal of credit may not render the entire issue free from suppression. The respondent has revered the certain portion of credit on 15.07.01 after the visit of preventive officers. Reliance has been placed on CBEC Circular 654/45/2002, dated 19.08.02 in which it has been clarified that in such situation, there is no option but to reverse 8% of the price of the exempted goods.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the Revenue has not rebutted the observations of the Commissioner which were based on the facts on record. The Tribunal concur with the Commissioner’s observations that respondent has substantially complied with the provisions of maintaining the two separate accounts for inputs going in exempted and dutiable products. The stray cases, where credit was taken on common inputs, the respondent has reversed the proportionate credit on their own. Reliance was placed on M/s Nicholas Piramal (I) ltd v/s CCE, Thane-I [2008 (89) RLT 566 (CESTAT-LB); on Chandarpur Magnet Wires Pvt Ltd v/s CCE, Nagpur [1996 (12) RLT 1 (SC)] and on Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd v/s Union of India [2004 (174) ELT 422 (All.)].

The Tribunal further noted that the period under consideration was covered by Circular 591/28/2001-CX, dated 16.10.01 and Circular No. 624/15/2002-CX, dated 28.02.02 which gave an option to assessee to reverse the actual credit contained in inputs or pay 8% of the price of exempted goods. The contention of Revenue that there is no option but to reverse 8% of the price of exempted goods is not sustainable even when reversal was done subsequent to clearance in respect of stray cases of use of common inputs. There was also no case of suppression as copies of RG 23 A Part-II alongwith RT 12 returns were submitted to the Range office. It was held that the case against the respondent did not stand.

Decision: - Appeal dismissed.

*****

Case: - Akzo Nobel Non-Stick Coatings Ltd v/s Commr. Of C. Ex., Ahmedabad

Citation: - 2009 (241) ELT 244 (Tri-Ahmd)

Issue: - Invalidation of Advance license is Advance release order only. The benefit of exemption notification should not be denied on procedural requirements.

Brief Facts: - Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Aqueous and Non-Aqueous paints. They made supplies to M/s Tuffware Industries Against advance licenses issued to them and subsequently invalidated by the DGFT, Mumbai. The said supplies were made in terms of Exemption Notification No. 28/2001. Benefit of Exemption Notification was denied on the sole ground that advance release order was not produced by the appellant.

Appellant’s Contentions: - It was contended that the effect of invalidation of advance licenses to M/s Tuffware Industries by DGFT, itself showed that appellants were entitled to clear the goods to M/s Tuffware Industries, without payment of duty. The invalidation letter issued by DGFT was nothing but advance release order only. M/s Tuffware Industries had approached DGFT for issuance of ARO who were not willing to issue the same on the ground that invalidation of advance licenses would serve the purpose. The authorities below have failed to appreciate the provisions of Import Export Policy and the procedures set therein.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the benefit has been denied to the appellants by the lower authorities on a technical ground of non production of ARO. DGFT has clarified that invalidation letter is an ARO and no separate ARO was required to be issued. Reliance was placed on Lipy Sipy Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. [2004 (171) ELT 118 (Tri-Del)]. The Tribunal further held that the requirement of Exemption Notification to produce ARO was only reflective of legislative intent that the supply in such cases should be made to advance license holder. In the instant case, supplies were made to M/s Tuffware Industries who were Advance licence holders, which had been invalidated by DGFT. The invalidation letter being nothing but ARO, benefit of the said notification could not be denied to the appellants.

Further, The Tribunal, on the findings of the Commissioner (A), held that there was difference of opinion between Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Finance on the issue and the clarification issued by DGFT was required to be followed, especially when the same was in furtherance of legislative intent reflected in the notification. Therefore, no penalty was imposable. Impugned order set aside.

Decision: - Appeal allowed with consequential relief.

*****

Case: - CCE & C, Hyderabad v/s Jay Engineering Works Ltd.

Citation: -2009 (93) RLT 719 (CESTAT-Ban.)

Issue: -Whether the assessments of the goods sold by the assessee to various government department by way of DGS & D rate contract, were required to be done by adopting Section 4A valuation or under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944?

Brief Facts: - Respondent-assessee sold electric fans to various Government Departments at the rate contract fixed by DGS & D. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on the ground that they have contravened the provisions of Section 4 by resorting to valuation under Section 4A. It was alleged that the said sale was not retail sale. That as per Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, there was no need to print maximum retail price on the fans so sold, because the fans were to remain the property of government permanently. It was proposed to deny benefit of abatement. Adjudicating Authority concluded that respondent had contravened the provisions of Central Excise Act and confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (A) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Revenue has come up in appeal.

Appellant’s Contentions: - It was contended that the respondent got unintended benefit by claiming abatement from DGS & D rate contract. It was contended that Government departments were institutional consumers and not individual or group of individual consumers. The sale made by them was not retail sale. Therefore, the Chapter-II were not applicable as per Rule 2A of the Standard of Weights and Measures Rule, 1977. Reliance was placed on Purisons Engineers Pvt Ltd v/s CCE [2004 (61) RLT 637 (CESTAT-Del)]. It was contended that MRP scheme had always margin of profit for the wholesale dealer/retailers, which is why after availing abatement under Section 4A the assessee used to pay duty.

Respondent’s Contentions: - It was contended that as per letter of the Department of Legal Metrology, the respondent was required to follow the provisions of Standard of Weights and Measures Act for supplies made to DGA & D.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Commissioner (A) was based on detailed findings on the question of fact as well as on the question of applicability of provisions of Rule 2A of the Act. It was held that Government Department was service industry and such rate contract fell within the ambit of Standard of Weights and Measures Rule, 1977. Therefore, the rate charged by the respondent to DGA & D was retail sale price and they were eligible to avail abatement which is required to be given to then as per law.

Decision: - Appeal dismissed.

*****

Service Tax Section:

Case: - M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

Citation: - 2009-TIOL-1356-CESTAT-MUM

Issue: - Service tax on import of services is applicable from 18.04.2006 i.e. from the date of introduction of reverse charge method.

Brief Facts: - Appellant received service from abroad during the period 01.01.05 to 17.04.06. Department issued show cause notice contending that appellant were liable to pay service tax for the said period in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994

Appellant’s Contentions: - Appellant contended that the issue has already been settled by decision of the Bombay High Court in the writ petition of M/s Indian National Shipowners Association v/s Union of India & Others (W.P. No. 1449/2006). In this petition, one of the issues raised was the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and the obligation of the assessee under the said Act to pay service tax on date from which such liability would arise.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal has relied upon the Judgment of the High Court in the case of M/s Indian National Shipowners Association v/s Union of India & Others in which it was held that “as Section 66A was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 18.04.06, the Revenue got legal Authority to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service….only after the enactment of Section 66A the taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents….before enactment of Section 66A, there was no such provisions in the Act, and therefore, revenue had no authority to levy service tax on the members of the Petitioners association.”

The Tribunal held that the facts of the appellant’s case were similar to the facts of the M/s Indian National Shipowners Association’ case and the law laid down by the High Court are squarely applicable to facts of this case. Accordingly, it was held that appellant could not be held liable for payment of service tax fro the period prior to 18.04.06 when Section 66A was enacted. For the same reasons, question of liability to pay interest or imposition of penalty also does not arise. Impugned order set aside.

Decision: - Appeal allowed.

*****

Case: - Vikram Ispat v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

Citation: - [2009] 22 STT 170 (MUM-CESTAT)

Issue: - “Input services” should be used in or in relation to manufacture of final product.

Brief Facts: - Appellant took cenvat credit of service tax paid on subscription to a Manufacturer’s Association, security services at the railway siding, “rent-a-cab” service and mobile telephony service. The said credit was utilised for payment of duty on the finished goods. Department initiated proceedings against the appellant by contending that cenvat credit was not admissible on these services as the said services were not covered under the definition of input service under Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Original Authority denied the credit and ordered recovery thereof under Section 11A r/w Rule 14, imposed penalty under Rule 15 and also ordered payment of interest. The appeal of the appellant was not granted in favour of the appellant. Hence, this appeal was filed.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Appellant has taken preliminary objection in the reply to SCN that it was not open to the department to invoke section 11A of the Central Excise Act for recovery of any amount of Cenvat credit availed on input services and it was not considered. Further, appellant submits that all the said services fall under the scope and ambit of input services. Appellant’s have cited decision in CCE v/s GTC Industries Ltd {[2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum.-CESTAT)} to contend that the definition of “input service” should be construed liberally. It is submitted that some of the items mentioned in the inclusive part of that definition are comparable to one or the other of the services in question and therefore, it should be held that the latter are also covered by the definition of “input service”.

Respondent’s Contentions: - Department contended that in view of text of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Section 11A was very much applicable to a case where inadmissible Cenvat Credit has been utilised for payment of excise duty on final products. Department contended that the said services did not fall under the scope of input services.

Reasoning of Judgment: - On the preliminary objection, the Tribunal held that the Department had raised a valid point. Rule 14 was enacted to cover cases of wrong availment of Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods or input services as also to cover cases of erroneous refund of any amount of Cenvat credit initially denied. The Rule also says that Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act and Section 73 and 75 of the Finance Act may also be applied mutatis mutandis to a demand under the Rule. Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act will be applicable where Cenvat credit in question has been utilised for payment of excise duty on final products and Section 73 and 75 of the Finance Act will be applicable where credit has been utilised for payment of service tax on output services. Since in the instant case, credit was utilised for payment of excise duty on finished goods, the preliminary objection is not sustainable.

On merits of the case, the Tribunal held that the subscription given by the assessee to the manufacturer’s Association was in no way connected with manufacture of finished goods or with clearance thereof. The Security service was employed at the railway siding at Roha whether was related to manufacture or clearance of finished goods was to be discerned from the agreement between the Appellant and the security agency but no such agreement was submitted. The appellant’s claim that these services were related to manufacture or clearance of finished goods is not acceptable. Regarding Rent-a cab service it was found that no documentary evidence was adduced to show the use of the said service by functionaries/officials/employees of the company to commute between their administrative office and the factory for purposes connected with manufacture/ clearance of finished goods. For mobile telephony service, the assessee had failed to establish that the mobile phones were used for purposes connected with manufacture/ clearance of finished goods.

With regard to liberal interpretation of the definition of “input service”, the Tribunal did not agree with the appellant’s submissions and held that the essential requirement contained in the main part of the definition must be there to bring any service under the scope of “input service”. The requirement is equally applicable to various items mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition was well. Accordingly, it is held that appellant was not entitled to avail cenvat credit on the said services.

Decision: - Appeal dismissed.

Comments: - It is to be seen whether the aforesaid decision holds after decision of Coco-Cola Industries wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the definition of “Input service” is very wide.

*****

Case: - Next Link (P) Ltd v/s Commissioner of Service Tax

Citation: - [2009] 22 STT 155 (BANG-CESTAT)

Issue: - Penalty is imposable when the assessee has collected the service tax and not deposited the same in Govt. Account.

Brief Facts: - Appellants were providing the services of Manpower Recruitment and Commercial Training & Coaching. During scrutiny of records it was found that appellants had collected service tax for the period January, 2006 to April, 2006 but did not deposited the same with the Government Treasury. When this fact was pointed out, they accepted the said facts and deposited the service tax with interest before the issue of show cause notice. The Department issued show cause notice on the ground that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Section 68 and Section 70 of the Act with intent to evade payment of service tax. Appellants challenged the penalty imposable on them on the ground that they had discharged their liability before the issuance of SCN. Adjudicating Authority held that appellants had violated provision of the Finance Act, 1994 in not discharging the Service Tax liability. Demand of service tax with interest was confirmed. Penalty @ Rs. 200 per day for the period of default under Section 76, penalty under Section 77 and under Section 78 were imposed. Hence, this appeal.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Appellant contended that penalties imposed in the impugned order are unwarranted. It is submitted that appellants had every intention to discharge their service tax liability. They could not do so due to financial hardship. Moreover they had deposited the service tax with interest before issuance of SCN. The penalty under Section 78 could not be imposed as there was no allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Service tax. Reliance was placed upon the judgments given in Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v/s Commissioner of Customs [2006 (200) ELT 370 (SC)], Pahwa Chemicals (P) Ltd v/s CCE [2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC)] and Collector of Central Excise v/s HMM Ltd [1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC)].

Respondent’s Contentions: - Revenue contended that appellant was aware of the law and he was required to comply with the provisions of law. As regards suppression of facts, it is submitted that the show cause notice was issued within period of one year, hence there is no need for invocation of extended period.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 76 was attracted as the appellant had collected the service tax for the said period and had not deposited the same with the Government treasury. Penalty under Section 77 was also justified as appellants had not filed the ST-3 Returns as mandated.

As regards penalty under Section 78, it was held that this section could be invoked only if there are ingredients of fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade Service tax. In the instant case, there were no allegations in the show cause notice, no penalty can be imposed under this section. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demand under Section 73 (1) which in itself did not attract provisions of Section 78 for imposing penalty. The judgments cited by the appellant were held to be applicable in this case. Impugned order to the extent it imposes penalty under Section 78 was set aside.

Decision: - Appeal disposed off accordingly.

*****

Customs Section:

Case: - Friends Trading Co. v/s Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Citation: - 2009 (241) ELT 247 (Tri-Mumbai)

Issue: - Non giving of relied upon documents means violation of natural justice and demand confirmed is not sustainable.

Brief Facts: - Show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the DEPB licence on the basis of which imports were made by the appellants were actually never issued by DGFT authorities and as such were not valid right from the beginning. But no report of any investigation conducted by the Revenue was produced. During hearing, appellants made a prayer to supply the copies of the clarification issued by DGFT and also other documents on the basis of which the allegations were made. The Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order without acceding to appellant’s request and confirmed the demand. In appeal before the Commissioner (A), appellant again requested for the said documents but the same was not supplied to them. The order of the lower authority was upheld. Hence appellant have come before the Tribunal.

Revenue’s Contentions: - Revenue contended that the documents asked for were produced before the bench at the time of hearing of the stay petition and not providing the same to the appellant was not going to help the appellant.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the appellant had the right to see the evidence relied upon by the Revenue and to place their defence accordingly. Production of such report by DR at the time of hearing of stay petition could not be held to be a substitute for the principles of natural justice. There is violation of principles of natural justice therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, the matters are remanded for being adjudicated de-novo. Appellant will be provided with the relevant material and are to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present their case accordingly.

Decision: - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

*****

Case: - Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited v/s Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

Citation: - 2009 (15) STR 752 (Tri-Bang)

Issue: - Refund claim itself means that the assessment order has been challenged.

Brief Facts: - Appellant had imported 100% cotton Woven Interlining and filed bill of entry dated 24.6.05 claiming classification under heading 52084320 and thereafter cleared the goods after payment of appropriate duty. Thereafter, the appellants filed refund claim by seeking classification under heading 62171010. It was contended that they had paid excess duty and the amount was required to be refunded. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the assessments had not been challenged by the appellant. The Commissioner (A) had relied upon the Apex Court judgment in CCE v/s Flock India Ltd [2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC)], in Priya Blue Industries Ltd v/s CC (preventive) [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)] and rejected the claim.

Appellant’s Contentions: - It was submitted that the issue has gone into great detail by the Apex Court with regard to the claim of reclassification is the case of Karnataka Power Corporation ltd v/s CC (A), Chennai [2002 (143) ELT 482 (SC)]. This ruling was followed in Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd v/s CC, Mangalore [2006 (206) ELT 529 (Tribunal)]. It was contended that the judgments of CCE v/s Flock India Ltd and Priya Blue Industries Ltd v/s CC (Preventive) were distinguishable.

Respondent’s Contentions: - Respondent submitted that the judgments of CCE v/s Flock India Ltd and Priya Blue Industries Ltd v/s CC (Preventive) were not distinguishable in view of the fact that appellants have not challenged the assessment and the initial classification adopted by them.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the situation has changed after the judgment of 3-Hon’ble judges rendered in case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd and the same was taken into consideration while delivering decision in Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd. In view of these judgments, appellants were entitled to claim reassessment in terms of their refund application. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for considering refund claim of appellant and also for examining the aspect pertaining to unjust enrichment.

Decision: - Appeal allowed.

*****

Case: - Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva v/s Arihant Metal & Alloys Ind

Citation: - 2009-TIOL-1446-CESTAT-MUM

Issue: - The refund has to be filed in time for claiming refund of clerical error by assessee.

Brief Facts: - Respondent-assessee filed a bill of entry dated 09.01.07 for clearance of imported goods which was assessed to duty @ 20%+ 16%+2%+4% and accordingly customs duty was paid. Respondent noticed that their CHA had mistakenly declared the duty payable @ 20%, whereas it was required to be paid @ 7.5 %. They made request for amendment of the document and furnished required information in support of their contention. The Additional Commissioner allowed amendment of the Bill of Entry on 12.01.07 but did not refund excess amount deposited by respondent. Against that respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) in which it was held that “refund was due to the appellant to the extent of excess duty paid.” Accordingly, respondent filed refund claim on 20.08.07 which was rejected as time barred. Respondent appealed against the said order. The Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. Department has come in appeal.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Department contended that provisions of Section 154 provided for clerical or arithmetical mistakes or error arising from any accidental slip or omission and this case did not fall under any of the situations which may attract section 154 but the respondent voluntarily paid the duty at higher rate. It was submitted that provisos of Section 27 were applicable in the case and the refund claim was rightly rejected on the ground of limitation. Reliance was placed on the judgments given in UOI v/s Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. [1996 (84) ELT 401 (SC)], Porcelain Electrical Mfg Co. [1998 (98) ELT 583 (SC)], Asst. Engr. (Civil), PCC Pole Factory, sub-div. CSEB v/s CCE, Raipur [2005 (191) ELT 370 (Tri-Del)] and Mecon Ltd v/s CC, Calcutta [2003 (153) ELT 574 (Tri-Kolkata)].

Respondent’s Contentions: - Respondent contended that this was a clerical error of the CHA in paying excess duty. Reliance was placed on the judgments in cases of Keshari Steels v/s CC, Bombay [2006 (155) ELT 320 (Bom.)], Canon India Pvt. Ltd [2006 (200) ELT 83 (Tri-Del)] etc.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that there was force in the contention of the Department that duty paid by respondent was voluntarily paid @ 20% instead of @ 7.5%. When the respondent found they have paid excess duty they asked the proper officer for amendment of the document and accordingly the same was done but by the time amendment was made the respondent had paid the excess duty. The Respondent instead of filing refund claim only preferred an appeal against the order of re-assessment and filed refund claim after the expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty as prescribed under Section27 of the Customs Act. The act of the respondent was not covered under Section 154. Order of the Commissioner (A) was set aside.

Decision: - Appeal allowed. Cross Objections disposed off.

*****

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/09-10/13

Post a Comment

Query