Wood Working Centre Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Wood Working Centre vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 13, 1995

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/8137

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/8137
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jan 13, 1995
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

Wood Working Centre

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1996)(85)ELT201TriDel

Excerpt

1. this appeal arises out of order-in-appeal no. 125-ce/appl/ind/90, dated 17-5-1991 of collector (appeals) indore under which the appellants, claim for refund of rs. 83,206.90 has been rejected as time barred. facts in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wooden articles and wooden furniture classified under erstwhile tariff item 68 to first schedule of the central excises and salt act, 1944. they paid duty at the rate of 9% and 12% ad valorem during the period from 1-4-1985 to 5-12-1985. subsequently m.p. housing board, the appellants controlling board, wrote to asstt. collector on 16-5-1985 that the value of clearances during the period 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985 did not exceed rs. 75 lakhs and therefore their units would be entitled for exemption for first clearance of rs. 20 lakhs. further by letter dated 10-1-1986, the m.p. housing board wrote to the collector of central excise, indore regarding the refund.2. ld. advocate for the appellants submitted that this letter dated 10-1-1986 which followed the earlier claim of exemption made on 16-5-1986 has to be treated as application for refund and not subsequent formal application filed on 17-2-1987. he cited that the tribunal order in case of appeal in its earlier case vide final order no. a/803/93-nrb where relying upon earlier decision of tribunal in case of poulose & mathen v. cce reported in 1989 (43) e.l.t. 424 (t) held appellant's letter dated 22-1-1985 as a refund claim. this decision was subsequently followed by another decision of tribunal under final order no. a/536/94-nrb in case of faridabad stainless & steel products co. (p) ltd. v. cce, new delhi.3. ld. dr submitted that since refund claim was filed only on 17-2-1987 for the duty paid during the period 1-4-1985 to 3-12-1985, the refund claim was hit by limitation under section 11b.4. heard both sides. it is seen that vide their letter dated 20-5-1985 they wrote that they would be availing exemption then only on.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. 125-CE/Appl/Ind/90, dated 17-5-1991 of Collector (Appeals) Indore under which the appellants, claim for refund of Rs. 83,206.90 has been rejected as time barred. Facts in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wooden articles and wooden furniture classified under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 to First schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They paid duty at the rate of 9% and 12% ad valorem during the period from 1-4-1985 to 5-12-1985. Subsequently M.P. Housing Board, the appellants controlling Board, wrote to Asstt. Collector on 16-5-1985 that the value of clearances during the period 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985 did not exceed Rs. 75 lakhs and therefore their units would be entitled for exemption for first clearance of Rs. 20 lakhs. Further by letter dated 10-1-1986, the M.P. Housing Board wrote to the Collector of Central Excise, Indore regarding the refund.

2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that this letter dated 10-1-1986 which followed the earlier claim of exemption made on 16-5-1986 has to be treated as application for refund and not subsequent formal application filed on 17-2-1987. He cited that the Tribunal order in case of appeal in its earlier case vide Final Order No. A/803/93-NRB where relying upon earlier decision of Tribunal in case of Poulose & Mathen v. CCE reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 424 (T) held appellant's letter dated 22-1-1985 as a refund claim. This decision was subsequently followed by another decision of Tribunal under Final Order No. A/536/94-NRB in case of Faridabad Stainless & Steel Products Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi.

3. Ld. DR submitted that since refund claim was filed only on 17-2-1987 for the duty paid during the period 1-4-1985 to 3-12-1985, the refund claim was hit by limitation under Section 11B.4. Heard both sides. It is seen that vide their letter dated 20-5-1985 they wrote that they would be availing exemption then only on 10-1-1986 in the letter from Chief Engineer, Housing Board to Collector of Central Excise, Indore mention has been made of their eligibility to exemption and a request for refund. This letters says that Asstt.

Collector of Central Excise, Bhopal, Jabalpur, Raipur and Bhillai may he requested refund applications which are being submitted by the Factory Managers may be considered and refunds be sanctioned earlier.

5. Following the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal cited earlier, I therefore hold that letter dated 10-1-1986 has to be treated an application for refund and that they would be entitled to refund if any to which they might be otherwise eligible under the law in respect of duty paid within a period of six months from the date of this letter.

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Wood Working Centre vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax