Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Ioc Ltd vs Cce, Trichy on 6 July, 2011

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

 
E/1377/2004 

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 50/2004 TRY (ADK) dated 30.07.2004, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy).

For approval and signature	

Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
__________________________________________________________
1.    Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the	:     No
       order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
       CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

 2.   Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the    	:     Yes
       CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication 
       in any authoritative report or not?

3.    Whether  the Honble Member wishes to see the fair  	:    Seen
       copy of the  Order.

4.    Whether order is to be circulated to the		 	:   Yes
       Departmental Authorities?  __________________________________________________________

M/s. IOC Ltd.						         :   Appellants 

		 Vs.

CCE, Trichy						         :   Respondent 

Appearance Shri M.V. Raman, Adv., for the appellants Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR, for the respondents CORAM Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 06.07.2011 Date of decision : 06.07.2011 ORDER No._______________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The assessees challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting claim for refund of Rs. 26,46,392/-, on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation.

2. Heard both sides. The claim filed for the period 14.05.01 to 13.09.01 has rightly been rejected on the ground of time bar as the assessees claimed refund after the expiry of statutory period of one year. The request for relaxation of the statutory period cannot be entertained as the Tribunal is a creation of the statute. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

  	   	(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)



(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY)	(JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
         TECHNICAL MEMBER			 VICE PRESIDENT


BB



2