TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of Revenue deposit. Further, there is no limitation for refund of Revenue deposit - the refund claim is not barred by limitation - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/802/2008-EX[SM] - Final Order No. 70293/2017 - Dated:- 16-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Shubham Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy. Commr. (A.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 6,68,250/- and debited the same in their Cenvat account-RG23A Pt-II No. 121 dated 03/12/2003. Subsequently, the Revenue demanded interest. On such demand, the appellant requested for calculation sheet of the exact tax liability. In response thereto vide communication dated 27/10/2005, the Range Superintendent informed that the differential duty payable was ₹ 4,08,431/-. It is further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on dated 20/07/2006. The Revenue objected to the refund claimed as time barred vide SCN dated 25/01/2007 and the same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 18/07/2007 rejecting the refund as time barred observing that the refund pertains to the period 01/04/2001 to 30th November, 2003 and the claim has been filed on 20/07/2006 after expiry of more than 2 years. Being aggrieved, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e further urges that limitation cannot start to run before the right to make a claim crystallize. 4. The learned A.R. for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I am satisfied that the amount excess paid in December, 2003 is in the nature of Revenue deposit. Further, there is no limitation for refund of Revenue deposit. In this view of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
