9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 1.5.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur, upholding rejection of refund claim in the adjudication order on the ground of limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the audit wing of Central Excise Department during the course of audit had detected irregular availment of cenvat credit by the appellant. On p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 28.08.2012, holding that the same is barred by limitation of time since the refund claim has been filed after one year from the date of the adjudication order. The appeal filed against the rejection of refund claim was also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, this present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. Mr. Alok Kothari, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in Section 11B of the Act, the same is clearly barred by limitation of time and thus, the authorities below are justified in denying the refund benefit. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 6. It is an admitted fact on record that the refund amount, in question, has been paid by the appellant under protest. Sub-section (1) of Section 11B provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion that the refund application filed on 27.12.2011 pursuant to the favourable adjudication order dated 01.02.2010 cannot be considered as barred by limitation of time and thus, the appellant should be entitled for refund of the amount in question paid under protest. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
