TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est vide PLA Entry Serial No. 47, dated 3-10-2007. Thus, it is clearly evident that the appellant paid the amount under protest. It is also noted that the appellant categorically mentioned in the PLA that the amount is debited under protest. So, the findings of the lower authorities that the demand is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. The other aspect of this case is that the appellant by l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant on 30-6-2006. A show cause notice dated 6-11-2006 was issued for recovery of refund claim amount of ₹ 84,434/-. By Order-in-Original dated 16-7-2007, the said show cause notice dated 6-11-2006 was dropped. The department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By letter dated 27-9-2007, the department directed the appellant to pay the refund amount. In compliance of let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim of ₹ 84,434/- on the ground that the appellant filed the refund claim in the office on 17-2-2011 and barred by limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. On perusal of the adjudication order, I find that the adjudicating authority observed that the refund claim was filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. The other aspect of this case is that the appellant by letter dated 21-7-2008 filed the refund claim and on 17-2-2011 they submitted the said refund claim in form R at the instance of officers. So, the initial claim of refund was filed within the stipulated period. Thus, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 3. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders are set aside. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
