Autolook Industries Vs. Cc

Autolook Industries vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 30, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37568

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/37568
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M T K.C.
Decided On: Dec 30, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Autolook Industries

Respondent

Excerpt

1. shri a k mishra, ld. consultant pleaded that the commissioner (appeals) has rejected their refund claim as time barred. the refund application was filed on 12.4.2004 whereas the duty was paid on 12.10.2000. therefore, the application was held to have been filed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. ld.consultant pleaded that the refund claim was filed within a period of six months. four counting the period day of payment of duty has to be excluded. he relied on the following decisions of the tribunal:-siemens telecom ltd. v. cc, new delhi (2000 (115) elt 160 (tribunal) (2) j.b.a. printing inks. v. cc, bombay (1986 (25) elt 551 (tribunal) he also referred to section 9 of the general clauses act, 1897 and section 12 (1) of the limitation act, 1963 and pleaded that the refund claim has been filed in time if the date of payment of duty is excluded in computing the period of six months.2. shri bipin verma, ld. jdr has no objection in remanding the case back to the original authority for taking a decision on merit. the date of payment of duty if excluded then the refund claim is filed in time.3. considering the arguments of both the sides, i find that the tribunal has already decided the issue that date of payment of duty is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. therefore, the refund claim was filed in time. the order of the commissioner (appeals) is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded back to him for examining the appeal on merits and pass a fresh order on merits of the case.

Full Judgment

1. Shri A K Mishra, ld. Consultant pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim as time barred. The refund application was filed on 12.4.2004 whereas the duty was paid on 12.10.2000. Therefore, the application was held to have been filed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. Ld.

Consultant pleaded that the refund claim was filed within a period of six months. Four counting the period day of payment of duty has to be excluded. He relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal:-Siemens Telecom Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi (2000 (115) ELT 160 (Tribunal) (2) J.B.A. Printing Inks. v. CC, Bombay (1986 (25) ELT 551 (Tribunal) He also referred to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 12 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and pleaded that the refund claim has been filed in time if the date of payment of duty is excluded in computing the period of six months.

2. Shri Bipin Verma, ld. JDR has no objection in remanding the case back to the original authority for taking a decision on merit. The date of payment of duty if excluded then the refund claim is filed in time.

3. Considering the arguments of both the sides, I find that the Tribunal has already decided the issue that date of payment of duty is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. Therefore, the refund claim was filed in time. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded back to him for examining the appeal on merits and pass a fresh order on merits of the case.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Autolook Industries vs Cc Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M T K.C.