TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee have filed applications for Rectification of Mistake in the order of this Tribunal No. 928/2010, dated 1-7-2010. According to the learned Counsel for the assessee, the observation of the Tribunal in para 5(iii) is wrong in view of the fact that as a 100% EOU, the assessee is deemed to have been registered and therefore is not required to be registered at all. Once the assessee is deemed to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation filed by the Revenue, the learned DR submitted that the conclusion of the Tribunal in para 5(ii) that the limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable is not correct. She relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune-II v. Gadre Marine Export Private Ltd. reported in 2010 (17) S.T.R. 62 (Tri.-Mumbai) and also para 6 of Notification No. 5/2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of M/s. STI India Ltd. reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 248 (M.P.) = 2010 (19) S.T.R. 614 (M.P.) a view was taken that limitation under Section 11B would not be applicable for refund claims filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Since the decision in the case of M/s. Global Energy Food Industries had relied upon 2 High Court decisions and the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
