News Flash
  • Allocation of charges of Members of CBIC Click Here
  • Two-Days' Training on "Establishment & Administration" for Group 'A' officers of CBIC on 11th & 12th April, 2019 at NACIN, Faridabad- Click Here
  • Result of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation Examination held on 15.03.2019 Click Here
  • Final Report on Two Swachhta Projects for the F.Y. 2018-19 Report | Format
  • In order to reduce illicit cultivation, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) has issued a Whatsapp No : 9686505002 for uploading of images of illicit cultivated area of opium and poppy by general public.
  • REQUEST FOR EMPANELMENT (RFE) Of Telecom Service Providers for Supply of 3G/4G SIM Cards to CBIC offices. Bids to be submitted till 08.04.2019 by 1:00 p.m
  • Appointment of common authority for the purpose of exercise of powers under sections 73,74, 75 and 76 of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Draft Seniority list of IRS (C&CE) officers in the grade of Joint Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 Click Here
  • NACIN, Mumbai, under aegis of Multi- Disciplinary School of Economic Intelligence (MDSEI), is conducting a two days Workshop on the topic “Analysis of GST Frauds involving Fake Invoices” on 18th and 19th March, 2019 at NACIN Complex, Mumbai.Click Here
View all

Refund / rebate

ECS subject-wise list of Central Excise cases

S No

Citation

Name of the Party

Subject Heading

1

2012 (2) ECS (116) (Tri-Mum)(150KB)

M/s Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd.

Applicants availed credit in respect of the lubricating oil and the same was used thereafter the same is cleared from the factory without payment of duty. The appellant paid the duty at the asking of the Revenue. The assessment regarding the demand is not challenged by the appellants. The appellants challenge the demand by way of filing the refund claim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Flock India Ltd. held that in the absence of challenge to the assessment order the refund is not maintainable. In the present case, as the appellants are challenging excisability of the goods which were cleared without payment of duty. In the refund application which is not permissible.

2

2012 (2) ECS ( 97) (Tri-Del)(162KB)

M/s Sheena Exports

The goods initially cleared from the factory for home consumption and thereafter exported out of India cannot be equated with the goods exported directly from the factory under bond in terms of provision of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rule

3

2012 (2) ECS (63) (Tri-Ban)(163KB)

M/s Indian Explosive Ltd.

When an assessee claims refund of duty on the basis of price variation under the price variation clause of the relevant contract subsequent to clearance of the goods, the claim, for whatever reason, cannot be allowed. Such fluctuation in price subsequent to clearance of the goods cannot affect the manufacturer's liability to pay excise duty

4

2013 (2) ECS (46) (Tri-Ahd)(109KB)

M/s Bajaj Food. Ltd

Peanut Butter manufactured is fully exempted- such goods are neither exported under bond nor under a letter of undertaking- Cenvat Credit Rules not applicable and no refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is admissible because no credit accumulation is possible in view of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules

5

2013(1) ECS (76) (Tri-Mad)(152KB)

M/s KONE Elevator India Pvt. Ltd

Uniformity of price cannot be bar for unjust enrichment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. Vs CCE, reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T 3 (S.C.) held that consistency of price of final goods of the assessee did not materially lead to the conclusion that incidence of duty had not passed on to the customers

6

2013 (2) ECS ( 86) (Tri-Del)(92KB)

M/s Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd

Once the claim does not assume character of correct claim in the eyes of law, no right accrues to the claimant from the date on which defective application was filed and an opportunity given for removal of defects is a course of natural justice to entertain proper application filed within limitation no interest can be claimed against a defective application. Only on the date when defective application is rectified and a proper application comes to record, that date is relevant date for arise of refund with, interest in case refund is delayed

7

2013 (2) ECS (49) (Tri-Del)(105KB)

M/s Berger Paints

Refund claim of education cess and S & H education was not entertainable, since Cess not payable on goods that are fully exempted from excise duty / customs duty or are cleared without payment of excise duty / customs duty (such as clearance under bond or fulfillment of certain conditions)

8

2013 (1) ECS (78) (Tri-Ahd)(153KB)

M/s Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd

Even if the payments made by the assessee are treated as pre-deposit, they cannot claim its refund before final disposal of their appeal

9

2013 (4) ECS (7) (Bom-HC)(179KB)

M/s. Rainbow Silks & Anr.

Accumulation of Cenvat Credit on the basis of fraudulent documents.

10

2014 (1) ECS (15) (HC-All.)(215KB)

M/s. Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd

Rebate under Rule 18 of C.Ex. Rules, 2002 - Procedure laid down under notification 19/2004 CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 is mandatory.

11

2014 (4) ECS (38) (Tri-Ahd)(156KB)

M/s. Parixit Industries Ltd.

Exemption not claimed at the time of assessment cannot be claimed by way of a refund claim without challenging the original assessment.

12

2014 (4) ECS (132) (Tri-Ahd)(142KB)

M/s.Mahindra Gujarat Tractors Ltd.

Limitation for Refund - Claim filed beyond the lapse of prescribed period - As per the provisions of Section 11B of the C. Ex Act, 1944 all refund claims are required to be fi led within the stipulated time limit prescribed

13

2014 ( 4) ECS (135) (Tri-Del)(106KB)

M/s. United Chain Industries

Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 - Invoice issued without actual supply of goods for the purpose of availing Cenvat Credit. The person purporting to sell goods connot say that he is not concerned with selling of goods and has not contravened the provisions of Rule 25 ibid