2006 (6) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner who had held that :- (i) The ratio of case law relied upon by the Assessee is rightly applicable in their case. (ii) Departments plea that reliance on Apex Courts decision in Indian Aluminium Co. being incorrect since the said judgment rendered in context of old tariff item, and not applica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 's case is covered under the Limitation Act, and 3 years time limit for filing refund is rightly applicable to them. 2. Heard the ld. SDR. The respondent was absent. The issue of refund eligibility on the basis of a decision in another case is now well settled by the Apex Court Constitutional Bench in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) wherein Para 99(iv) of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of a decision in another person's case. Any proposition to the contrary not only result in substantial prejudice to public interest but is offensive to several well established principles of law. It also leads to grave public mischief. Section 72 of the Contract Act, or for that matter Section 17(l)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, has no application to such a claim for refund. 3. Since in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X