TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed – order upheld sanctioning the refund claim and reject the appeal of the Revenue - E/762/2004 - 981/2010 - Dated:- 15-9-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the Appellant. Ms. Uma Maheshwari, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. The assessees herein, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 62,409/- was confirmed while demand of Rs. 87,727/- was dropped, by the Assistant Commissioner s order dated 30-3-1998. Further demand of Rs. 36,022/- was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 28-2-2001. Based on his order, the assessees filed a claim for refund of Rs. 36,022/- which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 31-1-2002 on the ground o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides. The amount in dispute was paid by the assessees pending finalisation of the show-cause notice dated 2-11-1995 and 4-12-1995 and therefore, the lower appellate authority has rightly held that the payment has to be treated as pre-deposit in respect of which time-limit provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not attracted. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order sanctioning th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
