TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the Order-in-Appeal (with the assessee also filing its cross-objection), the matter was sub judice before the Tribunal and naturally, when the matter was lis pendens, no such application for refund could be filed. The appellant s claim for refund is not hit by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 41564 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40013/2020 - Dated:- 20-1-2020 - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. S. Venkatachalam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the rejection of refund of ₹ 3,00,000/-. 2.1 Shri. S. Venkatachalam, Ld. Advocate app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime from the date of receipt of the order of this Bench. 3. Per contra, Shri. L. Nandakumar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue, supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the orders of lower authorities and after going through the same, I find that the Revenue has otherwise not disputed the eligibility of the assessee for refund other than being hit by limitation. 5.1 I find that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (supra) was seized of a more or less similar issue and was dealing with refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as in the case on hand. The Delhi Bench after considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or determining the relevant date in this case i.e. 4-7-2012. The refund claim stands filed on 21-8-2012, which is within a period of 1 year as permitted under Section 11B. Hence, I am of the view that the claim is filed in time. 5.2 From the discussions of the Delhi Bench, which has found that the claim for refund, which was made after the dismissal of SLP, was correct and the same applies to the case on hand also, since upon the Revenue preferring an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal (with the assessee also filing its cross-objection), the matter was sub judice before the Tribunal and naturally, when the matter was lis pendens, no such application for refund could be filed. 6. Therefore, applying the above ratio I am of the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
