2019 (3) TMI 613

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Rejection of refund application filed in 2013 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pertaining to excess payment made in 2009 for the quarter January, 2009 to March, 2009 is being challenged in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant paid Service Tax in excess amounting to Rs. 3,77,584/- for the quarter January, 200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he case of South India Corporation (Agencies) P. Ltd. Vs. CC, [2014 (300) ELT 255] in the case of Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CC, [2005 (190) ELT 106] in the case of Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, [2007 (215) ELT 63] in the case of Bijalimoni Tea Estate Vs. CCE etc. submitted that double payment made inadvertently cannot be treated as duty for which limitation of one year from the rel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] would still hold good and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is rejecting such refund needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. Heard from both sides at length and perused the case record. During the course of hearing, it has also been brought to the notice of this Bench that such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X