P.C.C. Polefactory Mpeb Vs. Cce

P.C.C. Polefactory Mpeb vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 30, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40954

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/40954
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Nov 30, 2005
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

P.C.C. Polefactory Mpeb

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(105)ECC54

Excerpt

2. the appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the refund of rs. 21,104.11 was page 0055 rejected on the ground that the same was time-barred. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order held that refund was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the central excise act.3. the only contention of the appellant is that the duty was paid under protest, therefore, the refund claim cannot be rejected as time-barred.4. we find that there is no evidence on record to show that duty was paid under protest, therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any merit. in these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund of Rs. 21,104.11 was Page 0055 rejected on the ground that the same was time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that refund was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Central Excise Act.

3. The only contention of the appellant is that the duty was paid under protest, therefore, the refund claim cannot be rejected as time-barred.

4. We find that there is no evidence on record to show that duty was paid under protest, therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any merit. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties P.C.C. Polefactory Mpeb vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.