TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Miles India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector [1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as also in the case of CCE Vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills [1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Therefore, as such the refund admittedly being beyond the period of 60 days, we find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned orders of the authorities below. - Decided against the appellant - ST/269/2010-CU(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 53011/2016-CU(DB) - Dated:- 5-8-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Shri R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Applicants Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the Respondent ORDER After hearing both the sides we find that the lower authorities have denied the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CCE Kanpur Vs. Pacific Leather Finishers-2016 (43) STR 273 (Tri-All) wherein the relevant date for computing the limitation period was extended by taking into account the date when the service tax was paid. 3. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that there is specific limitation laid down in the notification and the Tribunal being the creature of the Act cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and cannot extend the date by giving an artificial interpretation to the same. 4. After appreciating the submissions of both the sides we find that para 2(e) of the notification is to the effect that- the claim for refund shall be filed on a quarterly basis, within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also note that the Allahabad decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. Advocate has not considered all the above issue and was simplicitor passed by referring to the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner-2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del) . On examining the Hon ble Delhi High Court s decision in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) we find that the same related to an altogether different notification number 102/2001-Cus wherein refund of SAD was made available to the importers on the subsequent sale of the goods. It was in these circumstances, the Hon ble High Court held that the sale being occurrence of the event on which refund claim is admissible to the importer the sale dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
