9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of galvanized tower parts and was working in terms of the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, which required to pay duty on fortnightly basis. During the period 20.2.2001 to 20.4.2001, their right to pay duty by utilizing the Cenvat credit was forfeited. However, appellant paid duty of Rs. 19,78,043/-, during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with law. 3. As a consequence of the said order-in-appeal dated 3.5.2006, the appellant filed for refund of Rs. 3,53,171/-, on 12.7.2006. Revenue entertaining a view that inasmuch as the amount in question was debited on 26.4.2001, the refund application filed on 12.7.2006 was barred by limitation. Accordingly, they again initiated proceedings against the appellant for denial of the refund, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner that the "refund is otherwise admissible". 5. The appellate authority allowed the assessee's appeal and rejected the Revenue's appeal. 6. It is seen that the two orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e. the one dated 23.1.2007 holding the refund claim as within limitation and the subsequent order dated 22.10.2007 allowing the assessee's appeal were challenged before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). The present proceedings are relatable to the said recovery of erroneously granted refund in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 8. Arguing on the appeal, ld. Advocate Ms. Rinky Arora submits that the Tribunal's order dated 6.7.2011, which allowed the Revenue's appeal and as a consequence of which the present proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
