9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the Asstt. Commissioner vide his impugned order-in-original dated 31.12.2001 confirmed the demand of Rs.4,03,368/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount. The appellant had debited an amount of Rs.1,32,009/- vide cenvat credit entry no.1516 dated 20.01.2001. On appeal against the order of the Asstt. Commissioner, he set aside the order-in-origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount was debited against the confirmed demand of Rs.4,03,368/-. 3. As regards time bar, we find that the order-in-appeal was passed on 25.3.2004 and claim of refund was made by the appellant on 10.05.2004 i.e. within a period of around two months from the date of passing of the order-in-appeal. Revenue's contention that the limitation would start running from the date of payment of the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bit of duty was in relation to some other demands or was on account of some of other issue. Merely because the appellant has not mentioned against the said debit that the same is relatable to the demand in question will not ipso facto go to show that the same is not in respect of the confirmed demand. Inasmuch as, there is no allegation much less any evidence to show that the said debit entry was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
