9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed by the assessee against rejection of refund claim. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants entered into an agreement with M/s. Vikas Engineering (for short, Vikas) for sale of electric oscillating table fans under the brand name 'Cinni' to the appellants. The appellants are the sole buyers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellants was accepted by the Asst. Commissioner holding that the appellants' plea was not hit by six months period in view of the fact that duty was paid under protest and that the appellants had not passed on the burden of excess excise duty paid to their customers. The Asst. Commissioner also held that the appellants would be eligible only for the duty paid by M/s. Vikas Engineering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the matter for de novo decision of the Asst. Commissioner. The Asst. Commissioner in the de novo proceedings held that the refund claim filed by the appellants who are the customers of Vikas is barred by limitation under Section 11B(1) in view of the fact that the same was filed beyond six months after the date of purchase of fans from Vikas Engineering. When the appellant filed appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case similar to the one before us and held as indicated above. We have nothing but to agree with the decision of the Larger Bench. There is no other issue contested before us. In the circumstances, following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench as indicated above, we hold that purchaser of goods is required to file the refund claim within six months from the date of purchase even where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
