2000 (3) TMI 723

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . for the Respondent. [Order]. - The respondent filed a refund claim of Rs. 45,500/- on 10-5-1996. The payment of this amount was made on 27-2-1993. The refund claim is made on the ground that the CEGAT in his order No. A/339/96-NB dated 19-1-1996 has allowed their appeal. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 25-9-1996 rejected the refund claim. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elhi allowed the appeal of the party and observed that there is no limitations in implementing an order passed by any adjudication forum and consequential relief is not to be barred by time invoking provision of limitations of Section 11B. He relied on the following cases :- 1.  Adarsh Metal Corp. v. UOI -- 1993 (67) E.L.T. 483 (Raj.) 2.  CCE, Bombay v. M/s. S.K. Engg. Ltd. -- 1996 (83 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d with Section 11B(3) will not apply to such cases. The ratio of this judgment is followed in the case of General Engg. Works v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 86 (Tribunal). 7.  I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. Respectfully, following the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra) as followed in the case of Genera .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X