9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri B.P. Pereira, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the authorities below holding that refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a Bill of Entry dated 17-5-2006 and paid duty accordingly. On realizing that 4% additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To support this contention he placed reliance on Hind Agro Industries Ltd. v. CC - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 336 (Del.) wherein the appellant paid the cess which was not payable by the appellant. On realizing that the appellant was not liable to pay the cess, the appellant filed the refund claim, but the refund claim was rejected holding that it was filed beyond the period of limitation under Section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not leviable on the appellant. Hence, the provision of Section 27 of the Act, which bound the appellant to file refund claim within six months of the assessment of the Bill of Entry, are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. As observed in the impugned order that the refund claim has been dismissed being time-barred and there is no findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
