2024-VIL-1657-CESTAT-BLR-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Refund claim under Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, Limitation period – Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue’s appeals on the ground that Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 does not cover appeals filed under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and consequently, the appeals were barred by limitation - Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue were maintainable under Section 35E(2) of the CEA, 1944, even though the exemption was claimed under the Service Tax Notification – HELD - the refund of service tax was allowed under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, which specifically provides the procedure for claiming the exemption. As per the Notification, the exporter who is not registered with the Central Excise is required to file the refund claim with the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory. Therefore, the appeals against the adjudication orders were required to be filed under Section 35E(2) of the CEA, 1944, and not under the Finance Act, 1994 – Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeals of the Revenue on merit – Further, the impugned orders were communicated to the Revenue on 09.11.2010 and the appeals were filed on 08.02.2011, which was within the prescribed period of three months. Therefore, the appeals are held to be within the limitation period - matters are remanded to the extent of rejecting the appeals of the Revenue to consider the same on merit and pass an appropriate order

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page