TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty, the refund thereof does not fall under the term of Section 11B. Accordingly, limitation provided u/s 11B shall not be applicable in the present case where the respondent sought refund of an amount reversed in terms of Rule 6 (3) of CCR. However, an amount of ₹ 9,34,758/- plus interest of ₹ 3,25,000/- was confirmed as a demand in the adjudication process - The said order was not challenged by the respondent. Therefore, the demand of ₹ 9,34,758/- along with interest of ₹ 3,25,000/- attained finality - the amount of ₹ 9,34,758/- plus ₹ 3,25,000/- cannot be refunded to the respondent. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/S/94622/15 And E/86620/15 - A/86453/17/SMB, S/86454/17/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versal of 5% / 6% under Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not the payment of excise duty. The limitation provided under Section 11B is applicable only for excise duty. Therefore, the limitation provided under Section 11B is not applicable in the case of payment/reversal made of an amount equal to 5% / 6% in terms of Rule 6 (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, Revenue is before me. 2. Shri Ashutosh Nath, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that the respondent had filed the refund claim in form R under Section 11B. Therefore, all the provisions including the limitation provided under Section 11B shall be applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of Section 11B. Accordingly, limitation provided under Section 11B shall not be applicable in the present case where the respondent sought refund of an amount reversed in terms of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the learned Commissioner in principal rightly held that the time limit is not applicable in the case of refund of amount paid in terms of Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, an amount of ₹ 9,34,758/- plus interest of ₹ 3,25,000/- was confirmed as a demand in the adjudication process and the order-in-original was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 22/05/2015. The said order was not challenged by the respondent. Therefore, the demand of ₹ 9,34,758/- along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
