TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion from a normal refund claim. This is in the nature of a special provision and hence, any claims made as a consequence of Appellate Order/(s) will have to pass through the rigours of (ec) ibid. The application for refund here is filed on 14.08.2020, which is clearly after the prescribed period of one year from the relevant date as prescribed under (ec) of Explanation (B) to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and hence, the appellant does not pass through the rigours of the specific provision under (ec) ibid - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 40463 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 42294 / 2021 - Dated:- 3-9-2021 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri V.S. Manoj, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Learned Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing for the Revenue. 3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the appellant s claim was for the refund of amount appropriated during the pendency of appeal before the CESTAT, which is nothing but a payment during pendency which tantamounts to an amount paid under protest and that therefore, the limitations under second proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply. 3.2 Learned Advocate also inter alia contended that the Board vide Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014 has clarified that the Department has to refund the pre-deposit based on a simple letter from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um.)]; (vii) M/s. Clariant (I) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai [2004 (172) E.L.T. 488 (Tri. Mum.)]; (viii) Commr. of Service Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Wardes Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. [(2011) 31 STT 47 (Madras)]. 4. Per contra, Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Learned Departmental Representative supported the findings of the lower authorities. She also contended that the application for refund was filed consequent to the order of the CESTAT, which was dated 10.12.2018 whereas, the application for refund was filed on 14.08.2020. She would point out to sub-clause (ec) under Explanation below Sub-Section (5) to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to buttress that since the refund was claimed as a consequence of the order of Appellate Tribunal, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
