TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 85,778/- due on Goods Transport Operators service availed by it during the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. The appellants paid this amount of tax on 1-2-2003. Vide judgment in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 230 (Tri. - Del.) = 2004 (165) E.L.T. 161 (Tri.-Del.) the Hon ble Supreme Court upheld an order of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. He found that the amount claimed as refund had not been paid under protest and that the order of the original authority confirming liability equal to the tax already paid had not been challenged before the appropriate forum. He also held that the appellant could not claim a relief ordered under a judgment rendered in an appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the pendency of a dispute as under protest were also cited. 3. During hearing, the learned consultant for the appellants submits that the Show Cause Notice issued by the original authority to reject the claim for refund on the ground of limitation had indicated the amount as Rs. 47,368/-. Therefore, the entire claim could not have been validly rejected on the basis of such a Show Cause Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the appellants could not seek relief of a judgment rendered in the case of another person and found the claim devoid of merits. There is no dispute that the impugned claim was filed beyond the time limit prescribed in the statute. In the Show Cause Notice issued proposing to reject the claim indicated at one place the figure as Rs. 47,368/-. However, the notice discusses the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared at one place in the Show Cause Notice, the proposal had been to reject only a lower amount, I find, is misconceived. That this plea is a legal one and should be entertained by the Tribunal cannot be countenanced. The claim was barred by limitation and rejected in accordance with law. Considering the facts of the case, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (Dict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
