9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D/09 dated 4.08.2009. The said refund claim has been rejected by the adjudicating authority vide impugned order on the ground that refund of the duty as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, appellate tribunal or any court has to be claimed before the expiry of one year from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction. Thus the refund had to be claimed before 3.08.2010 and since the refund was claimed on 23.08.2010, it was time barred. However, it was not a case of duty paid under protest. 3. On being aggrieved with the order of the adjudicating authority appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after following the due process of law, uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld submit that the appellant herein had succeeded before the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal was dated 4.8.09. It is his submission that the appellant having paid the amount as central excise duty, the provisions of Section 11B will apply and the refund as a consequence of judgment hence definition of relevant date in Section 11B needs to be read. It is his submission that as per the definition, one the decision has been delivered in favour of the assessee, the protest gets vacated and he has to file the refund application within one year. It is his submission that for the proposition that once the order is in the favour of the assessee, the protest gets vacated is decided by the Tribunal in the case of Redington India Ltd. - 2011 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the assessee, as hereinabove recorded, is for an amount of Rs.41,81,875/-. Hence in my view, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the appellant even under panchanama cannot be considered as a duty deposited worked out by the Central Excise Officers. In my view, the said amount can be at the most an amount deposited by the appellant to pursue his legal rights to the show cause notice and being heard by the higher judicial for on the issue. I find that both the lower authorities have misdirected their findings by applying provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and more so by applying definition of relevant date given in the explanation. I find that in the case in hand, the amount which has been sought as a refund by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
