TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n part expended, which would often be the case in most payments of such sort. Therefore, it is impracticable for the authorities to refund applications that are filed beyond time even it is paid under a mistake of law. Therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the respondent and this aspect has not been taken note of by the learned single Judge. - respondent. is not entitled for refund of the claim and the order of the learned single Judge needs to be interfered with - Decided in favour of Revenue. - W.A. No. 129 of 2010 and M. P. No. 1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2013 - ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND M. VIJAYARACHAVAN, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakrishnan For the Respondent : Ms. Pushya Sitaraman, SC for M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the Department. 4 Learned counsel representing the Department would submit that even if the tax was collected without the authority of law, claim for refund cannot be entertained beyond the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.,1944. He would further submit that the respondent has not, satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the refund application on its part. It is his further submission that the respondent has chosen to approach this Court without exhausting the alternate remedy available by way of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. According to him, the order of the learned Judge needs to be interfered with. 5. The only point urged by the learned Senio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been in whole or in part expended, which would often be the case in most payments of such sort. Therefore, it is impracticable for the authorities to refund applications that are filed beyond time even it is paid under a mistake of law. Therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the respondent and this aspect has not been taken note of by the learned single Judge. 9. Moreover, even the learned single Judge, immediately after narrating the facts, in paragraph 7 of the order has clearly pointed out with regard to the delay and the same is extracted below:- Unfortunately, the date of payment, in this case, was admittedly 4.7.2005. The date on which a claim for refund was made, was 20.9.2006, which was obv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
