2008 (12) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-company is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel re-rolled products. Consequent upon Final Order Nos. 2059/99 and 2060/99 dt. 12-8-99, the company filed a claim for refund of Rs. 17,04,111/- representing the differential amount after adjustment of duty amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was not attracted in the case of any amount paid by way of pre-deposit; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. It is well settled that the refund of predeposit does not come under the purview of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, even if the provisions of Section 11B are applicable to such refund, we find that the adjudicating authority has examined .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r which Rs. 30 lakhs was paid, bore an endorsement "Ad hoc advance deposit pending investigation under protest" and that respondents had also written a letter on the same day to the Commissioner, detailing the reasons for depositing the advance amount of Excise Duty without prejudice and, in these circumstances, he has held that the claim for refund is not hit by limitation. 3. In this view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X