Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 995 - CESTAT ALLAHABADRefund of Interest - Time limitation - discharge of duty in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 under Compounded Levy Scheme - whether the same would be hit by the bar of limitation or not? - Held that:- The present appellant did not keep the matter alive by filing any appeal against the confirmation of interest or deposit of the same. All the refunds, have to be claimed in terms of Section 11 B of the Act, which prescribed a period within which such claims should have been filed by an assessee, subject to some exceptions. Admittedly in the present matter, the appellant’s case is not covered by such exceptions like payment of duty under protest or the assessments being provisionally. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. [1994 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that the authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and are required to decide the disputes in terms of the law provided in the said Act - Tribunal being creature of the Act, is bound by the provisions of the Act and even though the appellant’s refund claim of interest is admissible on merits, the same having been filed after the normal period of one year provided under Section 11 B, is hit by the bar of limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|