2017 (4) TMI 884

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. (A.R.) for the Department ORDER Per Mr. Anil Choudhary : The issue in this appeal by the appellant-assessee, who is a manufacturer of Industrial Thinner and Organic Compound Solvent is that whether they are entitled to refund of Rs. 2,59,410/- which have been rejected by the impugned order in appeal on the ground of limitation. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was availing SSI exem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l for the appellant that the interest amount on the said differential duty was worked out at Rs. 80,910/- as stated in Page 1 of the Order-in-Original dated 18/07/2007 and the said amount of interest have been separately paid by challan. The appellant took suo-moto credit of the amount excess paid Rs. 2,59,419/- debited earlier on 03/12/2003. Vide letter dated 10th May, 2006. The Range Superintend .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arned Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to reject the appeal upholding the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. 3.  Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount was suo-moto calculated and deposited pursuant to audit objection and the same was subsequently found to be deposited excess as per the calculation of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X