9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The duty was paid on account of ignorance of Notification No. 217/86-CE dated 01.031986. Since duty was paid provisionally under protest, the appellant subsequently filed refund claim. The department however issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to deny refund, Adjudication the refund sanctioning authority allowed claim to the extent of Rs. 7,05,812.57/- on the duty paid during the last six months, white at the same time rejected the balance of Rs. 29,80,997/- as being time barred. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No. 57/96 dated 06.06.1996 directed that the refund sanctioning authority to quantify the duty paid on 14.08.1991 only and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the same. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal in the third round of litigation. 4. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel MS. S Thenmozhi submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has sanctioned the refund and ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund for the reason that though the refund pertains to the period prior to 25.06.1999 Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was amended by inserting proviso to sub-Rule (5), The assessment in the present case became finalized after 25.06.1999 that is in the year 2010, after the matter was remanded by the Tribunal, Bangalore for the finalization of assessment. It is submitted that as per the judgment laid in CCE and ST Vado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco Industries Ltd (supra) has held that there is distinction between making of a refund and claiming of a refund and that the amendment carried out in Section 18(5) on 13-7-2006 cannot be held to be clarificatory and retrospective in nature. In para 21 of the judgment in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd, (supra) it has been held that department is bound by law to make the refund without any claim being required to be filed for the period up to 12-7-2006, Entitlement to refund and finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is independent from the provision of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Even under the amendment made by Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
