2004 (12) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ates, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Saxena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)]. - The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad, had confirmed the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeals filed by the appellants. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 35 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. They filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the appellants for Rs. 11,51,100.80 and Rs. 6,89,549.11 respectively, on the ground that the refund claims were time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the refund claims for Rs. 2,027.20 and Rs. 561.21 respectively have been sanctioned by the adjudicating authority as these were found to have been filed within the statutory period. 3. The Commissioner, Cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... required to be considered and specific findings thereon were required to be recorded, if the contentions of the appellants were not found sustainable. 6. The authorities below have misdirected themselves in believing that the claim for the period from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1996 was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the payment of duty made by the appellants throughout the period in question was d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X