TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim for refund of duty paid under protest by the manufacturer, within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B, this period having to be reckoned with reference to the date of purchase of the goods. It may be noted that the law differentiates the "manufacturer" and the "purchaser" for purposes of refund of duty. - Following decisions of M/s. Western Coal Fields Ltd. [2005 (8) TMI 7 - CESTAT - Chennai] - Decided against Assessee. - E/442/2005-SM - - - Dated:- 3-1-2014 - P K Das, J. For the Appellant : Mr T Ramesh, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr M Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) PER : P K Das The brief facts of the case are that the appellant purchased duty paid Conveyor Belts from M/s. Fenner India Ltd. There was a cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late court. It is seen that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Western Coal Fields Ltd. (supra) already decided this issue against the assessee and the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:- 5. It was contended by learned Counsel that, unlike the manufacture of goods, the purchaser had no way to register protest and, therefore, the provisions of Section 11B relating to payment of duty under protest should not be held applicable to refund claim filed by the purchaser. We are purchaser of goods from the manufacturer and that he did not acquire the right to claim refund of the duty paid by the manufacturer under protest unaffected by time-bar provided under Section 11B. This view of the Tribunal was disagreed with by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw differentiates the manufacturer and the purchaser for purposes of refund of duty. 6. For the reasons already noted, we are unable to interfere with the impugned orders which found the appellants refund claims to be time-barred. The impugned orders have the support of the apex Court's ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Allied Photographics India Ltd. (supra). As the refund claims in question are time-barred, it is not necessary for us to examine the issue relating to unjust enrichment. 5. In view of the decision of the Tribunal as above, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
