2018 (10) TMI 1415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthority by the aforesaid order dated 21 March, 2011 had rejected the refund claim of Rs. 25,26,228.88/- filed by the appellant. 2. It transpires from the records that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. The dispute is with regard to the goods sold to M/s P.N. Saftech Pvt. Ltd. during the period commencing January 2009 upto November 2009 for which Central Excise duty was paid at the rate of 14%. It, however, transpired to them that during the period January 2009 up November 2009, the Central Excise duty had been reduced initially from 14% to 12% and subsequently to 8% by a notification dated 24 February, 2009. This resulted in excess duty payment of Rs. 25,26,228.88/-. It is for this amount that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... credit note was issued by the appellant for Rs. 25,26,228.88/- in favor of M/s P.N. Saftech Pvt. Ltd. and that M/s P.N. Saftech Pvt. Ltd. was not required to pay any excise duty on the goods in the state of Uttarakhand. Thus, there was no occasion for the authority to demand any further document from the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority that the refund claim was barred by limitation is not correct as the duty was paid on 5 February, 2009 and refund application was filed on 22 January, 2010 within the stipulated period of one year as provided for in Section 11(B)(1) of the Act. . Learned counsel also submitted that there was no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act deals with the period of limitation. It provides that any person claiming refund of any duty of Excise may make an application for refund of such duty before the expiry of one year from the 'relevant date'. Relevant date has been defined in Explanation (B) of Sub-Section 5 of Section 11(B) of the Act. Clause (f) provides that the date of payment in any other case would be the date of payment of duty. This would be the relevant provision since the matter is not covered by any of the preceding sub-clause. Thus, the limitation for filing the refund application would start from the date of payment of duty, which date as noticed above, was 5 February, 2009 or any subsequent date. The refund application was filed by the appellant on 22 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X