2009 (8) TMI 740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri R.K. Chakraborty, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the refund claim filed in pursuance to the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 was rejected on the ground of limitation. I find that the Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 provides that the claim of refund shall be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... June, 2008 and was filed before December, 2008. The contention is that this clarification was not brought to the notice of the lower appellate authority. 2. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 256 (Tri.-Mumbai), whereby the Tribunal held that the time limit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h to June, 2008 could be filed till 31st December, 2008. In the present case, the refund claim was filed prior to 31st December, 2008 and the period relates to March to June, 2008. As the Board's Circular was not taken into consideration by the lower appellate authority, therefore, I find that the matter requires for re-consideration by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X