9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and obtained, clarification from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nanded Division on eligibility for exemption under notification no. 74/93-CE dated 28th February 1993, on 'PSC poles' manufactured by them and cleared to their parent-company. Based on this, the appellant filed application dated 8th March 2007 for refund of duty of Rs. 67,85,018/- paid for the period from January 1993 to December 2002. For the subsequent period from January 2003 to September 2006, while the correspondence with the jurisdictional central excise officer was continued, the appellant once again filed a claim for refund of Rs. 38,48,095/- on 13th January 2007. Both these applications were returned by the office for rectification of discrepan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to have been paid 'under protest' and the refund sanction order was enhanced to that extent while rejecting the rest of the claim. The present appeal of the Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd lies against this impugned order no. AGS (122)92/2011 dated 13th June 2011. 2. According to Learned Authorised Representative, eligibility for refund was determined solely on the basis of a clarification offered by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in what, by that authority, was chosen to be described, as 'order-in-original no. 27/2006 dated 22nd February 2007'. It is further submitted by him that this was a suo motu proceeding, characterized as an appealable order even though neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in Electricity Poles Manufacturing v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad [2000 (121) ELT 96 (Tribunal)], and of the Larger Bench in Asstt Engineer (Civil) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2008 (232) ELT 628 ITri.LB)] does not have to be examined by us. The first appellate authority has affirmed the decision of the original authority that such payments as were made 'under protest' alone are eligible for refund and none other. We find nothing on record placed by the appellant to contest this finding of operation of bar of limitation.
4. In view of the above circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this appeal which is consequently dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 04/09/2019) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
