9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund claim has been rejected at time barred. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of DG sets. As per the business module the appellant is required to deliver the DG sets at the buyer's place. For transportation of DG sets, the appellant recovered certain amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department on 12.04.2012, the refund claim was rejected holding that same is beyond prescribed limit as per section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944, and refund claim was rejected. Against the said order the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Order Dated 19.01.2010 has clearly stated that the amount paid by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11B of the act, therefore, refund claim cannot be entertained. To support this contention, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ajni Interiors Vs. Union of India application No. 10435 of 2018. 5. After hearing both the sides, the core issue arises that whether the amount for which the refund claim has been filed by the appellant is duty or a deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 11B of the Act is applicable\ to the facts of this case. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as stated hereinabove. The case law relied upon by the Ld. AR is not applicable to the facts of this case as the said case law deals with refund of duty, therefore, I hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
