TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing cenvat credit benefit to the appellant on the ground of limitation. In view of the settled position of law of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 1049 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the refund application filed by the appellant is clearly barred by limitation as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. - Decided against the appellant - ST/50873/2014 EX. [SM] - Final ORDER NO. 54114/2015 - Dated:- 10-8-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant : Ms. Vishakha Choudhary, C.A. Mr. Mohd. Suhail, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri Devender Singh, D.R. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim has to be lodged. She submits that even if the time limit of one year is to be considered for filing the refund claim, in this case, the time limitation should be computed from the date of issuance of the bank realization certificate. She further submits that the filing of refund claim beyond the stipulated time frame is a procedural condition, for which the substantive right to refund cannot be denied. In this contest, the ld. Consultant has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus. C.Ex., Indore reported in 2010 (19) STR 614 (M.P.). 6. Per contra, Shri Devender Singh, the ld. JCDR appearing for the respondent submits that the Notification dated 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying cenvat credit benefit to the appellant on the ground of limitation. The judgment of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court cited by the ld. Consultant for the appellant in the case of STI India Ltd . (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the said judgment has been departed by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. (Supra) by observing the following:- 17 . The learned counsel would also rely upon a Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 248 (M.P.) [STI India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Indore]. In that case, though the Court has held that Clause 6 of Appen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
