Arising Out Of Order-In-Appeal No. ... vs C.C.E. Meerut-I
- CitationAppeal No. E/3405/2005-EX(DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The refund claim was rejected as premature only because the assessment for the relevant period had not yet been finalised; where the assessment for a period has in fact been finalised by an earlier order of the Tribunal, a refund claim for that period must be entertained and decided on its merits by the Adjudicating Authority, while a claim for periods whose assessment remains unfinalised is to be considered only once that assessment is complete.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 103-CE/Applicant/MRT-I/2005 dated 31.05.2005 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Meerut].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. .Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E. Meerut-I .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Ravinder Narain, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 19.02.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50421/2015-EX(DB)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein there refund claim has been rejected as pre mature.
2. The facts of the case are that in pursuant to the CESTAT order no. 685/99-A dated 21.05.1999, this Tribunal held that the price at factory gate is the price on which duty is to be paid by the appellant. Their appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Consequent to the said order appellant filed refund claim for the period March 1975-March 1985. The said refund claim was rejected on the ground as pre mature. Against the said order appellant is before us.
3. Today when the matter was called and the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prayed that vide order dated 21.05.1999 of this Tribunal, the period involved was March 1975-June 1976 but they filed refund claim for the whole of the period that is March 1975 to March 1985. Although the period is March 1975-June 1976. Therefore, the assessment of the said period has been finalized and the lower authorities be directed to entertain their refund claim for the said period and for the rest of the period direction be given to the Adjudicating Authority to entertain the refund claim as and when assessment is finalized.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel. Considered the submissions.
5. The prayer made by the Ld. Counsel seems to be genuine as for the period March 1975-June 1976 assessment has been finalized by way of the order of this Tribunal dated 21.05.1999. In these circumstances, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to entertain the refund claim filed by the appellant on 19.11.1999, for the period March 1975-June 1976 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. For the remaining period the Adjudicating Authority shall consider refund claim as and when assessment is finalized.
6. With these terms appeal is disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Bhanu
3
E/3405/2005-EX(DB)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free