9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on input, capital goods and input services. It is seen that inasmuch as the appellant was selling the electricity generated in their plant to UPPL, Revenue entertained a view that they are required to revers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Original dated 17.11.2016, the demand raised against the assessee on the said ground was dropped. 3. As a consequence of dropping of demand, the appellant filed a refund claim on 01.12.2016, to the extent of Rs. 30,02,178/-. While adjudicating the said refund claim, the original adjudicating authority allowed the same to the extent of Rs. 26,23,605/- and rejected the amount of refund of amountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal stand before Commissioner(Appeals) that the amount was being paid by them under protest and as such limitation would not apply, but the appellate authority did not consider the said plea of the assessee and rejected the claim as barred by limitation. Hence the present appeal. 5. The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the amount was being paid by the appellant in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional. The appellant have taken a categorical stand that the reversal was being done by them after lodging their protest vide letter dated 05.06.2009. If that be so, the limitation would not apply. However, neither of the authorities below have referred to and considered the said protest letter filed by the appellants. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
