TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8th February 1993. 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 - there is nothing on record placed by the appellant to contest this finding of operation of bar of limitation. Appeal dismissed. - EXCISE APPEAL NO: 1444 of 2011 - A/86549/2019 - Dated:- 4-9-2019 - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE DR SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) None for the appellant Shri RK Dwivedi, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: C J MATHEW This appeal, according Learned Authorised Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble with their present claim of duty exemption. The rejection of the application for refund was challenged before Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad, who, taking note of the clarification issued by the jurisdictional central excise authority, allowed refund for the period from January 2003 to September 2006 without impediment of bar of limitation as endorsement of payment under protest was found in the challans. In the absence of such endorsement for the payments for the earlier period, the rejection of refund claim was upheld to that extent. Based on this order of the first appellate authority, refund of ₹ 38,48,095/- was sanctioned as the order of the first appellate authority had not been stayed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther and we turn to the appellate remedies that have been sought. 3. On a specific query, Learned Authorised Representative clarified that Revenue is not in appeal against the order of the first appellate authority which has restricted the sanction to a small amount of ₹ 3,17,250/- that was not challengeable in the light of the threshold prescribed for litigation by Revenue. It is seen from the impugned order that the original authority, having subjected the refund claim to the twin tests of unjust enrichment and limitation of time, thought it fit to sanction only the claim pertaining to the period between January 2003 and September 2006. The propriety and legality of this claim did not appear to have been challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
