Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)Itel Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 18 February, 2016
24. The duty was thus, collected on what can be described as
misconstruction of the correct legal position. Even though the
petitioner may accuse the department on such misconstruction,
nevertheless, the fact remains that the petitioner is seeking
refund of the duty paid. Though, the duty may have been paid
under protest, period of limitation prescribed under Rule 13
would apply. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on the
decision of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case
of Arignar Anna Sugar Mills vs. CEGAT, Chennai reported in
277 ELT 63 and the decision of Division Bench of Kerala High
Court in case of Itel Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Calicut reported in 301 ELT 288. Both these
judgements referred to section 11B of the Central Excise
Act,1944, and hold that on a duty paid under protest, the
limitation under section 11B would not apply. Section 11B of
the Central Excise Act, however, contains further proviso which
provides that the limitation of one year shall not apply where
any duty and interest has been paid under protest. There is no
such similar provision under Rule 13 of the Rules.
Section 3 in The Medicinal And Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Medicinal And Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Medicinal And Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955
1