Excise & Customs : Where assessee : (a) was clearing cylinders under price variation clause, (b) had not opted for provisional assessment and (c) was paying differential duty on supplementary invoices, said self-assessment by assessee was not provisional but final assessment; therefore, benefit of extension of time-limit for refund claim was not available
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 388 (Madras)
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV
v.
Sri Balaji Cylinders (P.) Ltd.*
CHITRA VENKATARAMAN AND T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NOS. 1109-1110 OF 2009†
JANUARY 3, 2013
Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, section 18, read with section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 and rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Assessment - Central Excise - Provisional Assessment - Assessee-manufacturer was clearing cylinders under price variation clause - Assessee wrote letter to department stating that as price variation is regular, provisional assessment need not be resorted to and he would pay differential duty wherever supplementary invoices are raised periodically in future - In one case refund arose and assessee claimed refund contending that said assessments were provisional - HELD : In view of assessee's own letter, assessments were not provisional but final assessments and, that too, at request and insistence of assessees [Para 8] [In favour of revenue]
Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Refund - Period of limitation - Assessee was clearing goods under price variation clause but did not resort to provisional assessment - Assessee applied for refund pertaining to year 1997-98 on 21-5-2001 - Department rejected said claim as time-barred - Assessee argued that since goods were cleared under price variation clause, assessment was provisional - HELD : Since assessee had not applied for provisional assessment, assessment made in 1997-98 was final assessment in year 1998 itself and benefit of clause (eb) of Explanation to section 11B was not available - Hence, period of 1 year from relevant date referred to in section 11B would start from year 1997-98 itself and accordingly, refund claims were time-barred [Paras 8 to 13] [In favour of reven
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 388 (Madras)
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV
v.
Sri Balaji Cylinders (P.) Ltd.*
CHITRA VENKATARAMAN AND T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NOS. 1109-1110 OF 2009†
JANUARY 3, 2013
Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, section 18, read with section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 and rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Assessment - Central Excise - Provisional Assessment - Assessee-manufacturer was clearing cylinders under price variation clause - Assessee wrote letter to department stating that as price variation is regular, provisional assessment need not be resorted to and he would pay differential duty wherever supplementary invoices are raised periodically in future - In one case refund arose and assessee claimed refund contending that said assessments were provisional - HELD : In view of assessee's own letter, assessments were not provisional but final assessments and, that too, at request and insistence of assessees [Para 8] [In favour of revenue]
Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Refund - Period of limitation - Assessee was clearing goods under price variation clause but did not resort to provisional assessment - Assessee applied for refund pertaining to year 1997-98 on 21-5-2001 - Department rejected said claim as time-barred - Assessee argued that since goods were cleared under price variation clause, assessment was provisional - HELD : Since assessee had not applied for provisional assessment, assessment made in 1997-98 was final assessment in year 1998 itself and benefit of clause (eb) of Explanation to section 11B was not available - Hence, period of 1 year from relevant date referred to in section 11B would start from year 1997-98 itself and accordingly, refund claims were time-barred [Paras 8 to 13] [In favour of reven
No comments:
Post a Comment