9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Archana Wadhwa : The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and during the relevant period was working under the provisions of Pan Masala Packing Machine ( Capacity determination and collection of duty) Rules, 2008, i.e. compounded levy scheme. They filed a refund claim of Rs. 7 lakhs on 2.1.14 on the ground that during the period 1.10.2012 to 15.10.2012 their one machine i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 11 B of the Central Excise Act cannot be looked into and adopted for deciding refund claim as arising out of said scheme. The lower authorities have not agreed with the above stand of the appellant and accordingly have passed the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the sole issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Ratio of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would equally apply to the provisions of section 11B of the Act relating to time limitation for refund. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the importing one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme is not appropriate and would disturb the smooth functioning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was agreed upon by the Tribunal and Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Similarly, in the case of CCE, Mumbai V vs Shree Ram Textile & Processing Mills (I) P Ltd. [2006 (193) ELT 485 (Mum)], it was observed that provisions of section 11 B are not applicable to the refund of duty excess paid under the Compounded Levy Scheme. Though it stand brought to my notice that the said decision of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
