- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
CESTAT rules on the date of filing the refund claim
CESTAT rules on the date of filing the refund claim
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the date of filing of the refund claim should be reckoned as the claim of first filing of the refund claim and not as per the date of filing the 'revised' refund claim.
The appellant, Voxco Pigments And Chemicals Pvt Limited, had filed the refund claim in June 2017 for an amount of Rs.12,25,023. Thereafter, on the audit query, the appellant reduced the refund claim for Rs.7,92,262 out of the earlier amount.
The tribunal said that since the appellant had filed the refund claim for the amount of Rs.12,25,023 which was well within the stipulated time period of one year as prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the subsequent refund claim of Rs.7,92,262 must be treated in continuation of the earlier claim.
The judicial member Ramesh Nair observed that the date of filing of the refund claim should be reckoned as the claim of first filing of the refund claim and not as per the date of filing the revised refund claim.
The tribunal stated, "This view is supported by this tribunal's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II vs United Phosphorus Ltd. (supra) and M/s Fives India Engineering & Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGST & CE (supra).
"Therefore, I am of the clear view that the appellant's refund claim cannot be rejected on the basis of the time bar. The impugned order is set aside and an appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after considering the other facts and issues such as unjust enrichment, etc, but without going into the limitation. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority."