TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time bar alone he has not verified the aspect of unjust enrichment, I, therefore remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the refund in accordance with law but the same cannot be rejected on time bar. However, the matters relates to two appeals No. E/141/12 and E/86808/13 being interconnected should also be reconsidered by the original authority. Demand of duty, Cenvat credit and penalty - Appellant have suo moto taken the recredit for which the refund claim was also filed - Held that:- the matters relates to two appeals No. E/141/12 and E/86808/13 being interconnected should also be reconsidered by the original authority. Therefore both these appeals are also remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner, expressed their intention to claim the refund under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the statement showing the actual calculation of the duty payable and paid, was also submitted. The appellant under the subsequent letter dt. 8.9.2009, about their intention of taking the Cenvat Credit of the excess paid duty was also submitted to the department. The Ld. Counsel also invited my attention to the department s letter dt. 24.12.2009, wherein with reference to the appellants letter dt. 8.9.2009, on the issue of recredit the department has informed that proper procedure for refund/re-credit, as per Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder has to be followed. He submits that in view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first take up the Appeal No. E/258/2011 I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim only on the ground of time bar for the reason that the formal refund application was filed by the appellant after one year from payment of the excess duty. However, the appellant right from 15.6.2009 was continuously making the correspondence with the department regarding the refund of the re-credit of the same amount of ₹ 96,122/-. Therefore, in my considered view, the legitimate claim of refund stand made on 15.6.2009 itself even though the formal refund application was filed subsequently, therefore the refund cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar. Since, the lower authority has rejected the refund on time bar alone h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
