TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17-SM - Final Order No. 50548/2018 - Dated:- 5-2-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, C.A. - for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of duty paid during the course of investigation along with interest has been denied to the appellant following the decision of this Tribunal in appellant s own case wherein penalty against the appellant has been dropped by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 52203/2015 dated 27th May 2015. 2. The facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted at the end of the appellant and it was found that the appellant is requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11A (2B) of the Act. Therefore, refund claim are not entertainable. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as the show cause notice is barred by limitation. Therefore, whatever amount they have paid during the course of investigation is pre-deposit is required to be refunded. In support of this contention, he relied on the following decisions: (i) Nandeshwari Packaging Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 441 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (ii) Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. 2007 (212) ELT 213 (Tri.-Del.); (iii) Parle International Ltd. 2005 (188) ELT A81 (SC); (iv) Parle International Ltd. 2001 (127) ELT 329 (Guj.); (v) Shree Ram Food Industries 2003 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already paid by the appellant during the course of investigation along with interest was required to be appropriated in terms of Section 11A(2B)of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Although, it was also held that show cause notice is barred by limitation but the findings of this Tribunal has not been challenged by the appellant before the higher forum and the same has attained finality. In that circumstances, the amount paid during the course of investigation by the appellant along with interest has been appropriated by this Tribunal. In that circumstances, the refund claims are not maintainable. Therefore, the authorities below has rightly rejected the refund claims of the appellant. 8. Further, the case laws relied upon by the ld. Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
