TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-3-2004 wherein the refund claim of the appellants have been rejected on the ground of time-bar. 2. The relevant facts arise for consideration are that the appellants are 100% EOU and are engaged in the manufacture of transformers. They procured duty paid Enamelled Wire from their suppliers and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also rejected the refund claim on the ground that the said refund claim have been filed after the expiry of six months from the relevant date as laid down under Section 11AB. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that it is a fact that they are EOU and they have consumed the duty paid inputs for export of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that the appellants case is not at all covered under Section 11B for the simple reason that they choose to pay the duty on the inputs instead of waiting for getting the CT 3 certificate from the Deptt. He further submits that their case of claiming the refund of duty paid on the inputs could get covered under sub-clause (e) to Explanation B to Section 11B and as a purchaser their claim is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be considered as a major hurdle for them for not claiming the refund claim. 6. I find that refund claim under Section 11B is in respect of refund of any duty of excise. It is not at all disputed that the refund claim filed by the appellants before the authorities was in respect of duty of excise paid on the enamelled wire. Since the provisions of Section 11B are applicable and attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
