9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s., Order-in-Appeal No., Duty & Education Cess as follows:- Sl. No. Appeal No. in Tribunal Order-in-Appeal No. Duty Education Cess 1 E/2113/2009 51 to 58/CE/Alld/2009 dt. 07/05/2009 Rs.2,965,929.00/- Rs.59,326.00/- 2 E/2114/2009 51 to 58/CE/Alld/2009 dt. 07/05/2009 Rs.4,463,004.00/- Rs.89,258.00/- 3 E/2115/2009 51 to 58/CE/Alld/2009 dt. 07/05/2009 Rs.2,283,252.00/- Rs.45,865.00/- 4 E/2116/2009 51 to 58/CE/Alld/2009 dt. 07/05/2009 Rs.2,429.00/- Rs.48.00/- 5 E/2117/2009 51 to 58/CE/Alld/2009 dt. 07/05/2009 Rs.1,08,703.00/- Rs.2,174.00/- 6 E/2118/2009 51 to 58/CE/Alld/2009 dt. 07/05/2009 Rs.5,80,072.00/- Rs.11,601.00/- 7 E/2119/2009 51 to 58/CE/Alld/2009 dt. 07/05/2009 Rs.2,022,685.00/- Rs.40,455.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r finalization of assessment and refund was time barred under the provisions of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also observed that the appellant appears to have not made any request for granting Provisional Assessment during the relevant period. The SCN was contested on the merits, vide Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2008, the claim for provisional assessment to finalize and refund was rejected as time-barred under section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Observing that in view of the new Rules with effect from 01.07.2001, the permission granted under the old Central Excise Rules, 1944 was no longer effective and thus the refund under Section 11 B of the Act, 1944 is time barred and thus rejected. Being aggrieved th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period of six months. Further stating that ITI had admittedly got permission from Chief Commissioner though dated 01.07.2006 to file the necessary details/documents for finalization of provisional assessment beyond the statutory time limit. It is accordingly urged by learned counsel that under the facts and circumstances, the provisional assessment should have been finalized and upon finalization, the refund should have been granted subject to verification. 5. The learned A.R. for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, I hold that under the provisions of section 38A (c) the provisional assessment permission granted under the Central Excise Rule 9B in the year 1989, remained valid and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
