9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal by the assessee is against rejection of a refund claim for the period February, 2001 to February, 2002. The appellant had taken Cenvat credit on input, out of which the credit to the extent taken on input in waste cleared without payment of duty during the relevant period was sought to be denied by the department, whereupon the assessee reversed the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected as time-barred. 2. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim for refund of duty of Rs. 4,88,480/-, after noting that the assessee had validly registered their "protest" after reversal of credit to that extent in their Cenvat credit. The appellate authority, however, did not allow refund of the rest of the amounts mentioned in the above table for the reason that valid protest w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was liable to be rejected as time-barred. 4. Ld. SDR submits that the pendency of any appeal pertaining to irrelevant period cannot be treated as 'protest' for the relevant period. It is also submitted that, in respect of the reversals of credit mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 4 in the above table, there was no valid protest in terms of Rules 233B ibid. The party ought to have submitted their let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the assessee should not be left to suffer. Hence, on the facts available on record, I hold that protest was registered in substantial compliance with the relevant rule in respect of the reversal of credit mentioned at Sl.No. 2 to 4 ibid and therefore the corresponding claim for refund is not hit by limitation. However, the position is different with regard to the claim for refund of duty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
