Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Neco Centricast

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Neco Centricast

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 26, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34326

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/34326
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: M T K.D.
Decided On: Feb 26, 2004
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Neco Centricast

Excerpt

.....however held that the claim ought to have been filed within 6 months from the date of payment.4. the logic advanced by the department is somewhat intriguing. in the event the respondents were to file such a claim, the lower authorities were bound to reject it on the grounds that there is no order from the competent authority to permit refund. the order permitting refund came into existence only on 10.2.99. therefore, against the rejection the respondents would have been required to go through a separate chain of litigation.5. in this connection i observe that the respondents have placed reliance on the judgement of the cegat in the case of commissioner of central excise, nagpur v. abhideep chemicals pvt. ltd. reported in 2002 (49) rlt 984 (cegat-mum.) wherein it has been held that "any duty that the manufacturer pays in that situation or either he files an appeal or either when the appeal is pending would be the duty paid under protest" 6. i further observe that the tribunal had come to the said conclusion after a detailed analysis of the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of mafatlal industries reported in 1996 (17) rlt 907 (s.c.lb) = 1997 (89) rlt 247. therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the tribunal's decision in the case of cce, nagpur v. abhideep chemicals, i hold that the commissioner (appeals) was light in holding that the claim could not be rejected as time barred.

Full Judgment

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (A), whereunder the order-in-original passed against the respondents was set aside. Vide the order-in-original the refund claim of the respondents for Rs. 1,09,268/- was rejected holding that the payment was not under protest hence the claim was time barred. The said amount was paid by the respondents vide debit in RG 23 Pt-II on 26.9.95.

3. It is noted that the refund arose consequent to a favourable order dated 10.2.99 obtained by the respondents from Commissioner (Appeals), The amount was claimed on 9.4.99, which is within the period of 6 months from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The departmental authorities however held that the claim ought to have been filed within 6 months from the date of payment.

4. The logic advanced by the department is somewhat intriguing. In the event the respondents were to file such a claim, the lower authorities were bound to reject it on the grounds that there is no order from the competent authority to permit refund. The order permitting refund came into existence only on 10.2.99. Therefore, against the rejection the respondents would have been required to go through a separate chain of litigation.

5. In this connection I observe that the respondents have placed reliance on the judgement of the Cegat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2002 (49) RLT 984 (Cegat-Mum.) wherein it has been held that "Any duty that the manufacturer pays in that situation or either he files an appeal or either when the appeal is pending would be the duty paid under protest" 6. I further observe that the Tribunal had come to the said conclusion after a detailed analysis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 1996 (17) RLT 907 (S.C.LB) = 1997 (89) RLT 247. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Abhideep Chemicals, I hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was light in holding that the claim could not be rejected as time barred.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Neco Centricast Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge M T K.D.