TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CCE (Appeals)’s order i.e. 26-3-04 and since the refund claim had been filed for beyond the period of one year from this date, the same is time-barred – refund rejected. - E/603/2007-SM(BR) - 1481/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 7-11-2008 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri S.K. Pandey, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Atul Gupta, C.S., for the Respondent. [Order].- In this case the respondent manufacturing marble slabs from marble blocks, had cleared the marble slabs without payment of duty. A case of Central Excise Duty evasion was booked against them and a show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,19,396/- alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty on them un der Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative pleaded that even if the respondent initially paid the duty under protest, the protest would be treated as having ended once the issue was decided in their favour by the CCE (Appeals) vide the order-in-appeal dated 26-3-04, therefore, the relevant date for calculating the limitation period would be 26-3-04 and since the respondent have filed the refund claim long after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, the same had been rightly rejected as time-barred by the Deputy Commissioner. He cited Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in case of Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the duty has been paid under protest, the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case the order-in-appeal in the respondent's favour had been passed on 26-3-04 and it is not under dispute that the refund claim was filed far beyond the limitation period of one year prescribed under Section 11B if calculated from 26-3-04. The point of dispute is as to whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B would be applicable in this case or not. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in such a case, the limitation period will not apply. I do not agree with this contention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 of its judgment in the case of Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) after considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
