TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal s order dated 29.09.2011. Firstly the duty was deposited on the behest of department and it is in the nature of payment of duty under protest for this reason, time limit of one year prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable in the facts of this case. Secondly, the issue on merit whether the other charges are liable for duty has been decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 29.09.2011. The appellant s refund rejected by lower authorities on the ground of limitation is not sustainable. The sanctioning authority is at liberty to ascertain other aspects of unjust-enrichment, duty payment aspect etc. while sanctioning the refund - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent the entire amount of Central Excise duty was paid under protest on 03.01.2006. 2. The appellant filed refund claim of duty paid under protest to the range office on 05.01.2006 vide their letter No. SDR/TOP/EA-2002-04 dated 03.01.2006. The department by show cause notice dated 05.05.2006, proposed to appropriate an amount of Rs. 1,94,98,643/- deposited against the aforesaid demand. There was also a proposal for charging interest and imposition of penalty. By order-in-original No. 03/Commr/2007 dated 14.03.2007 demand of the said amount was confirmed by learned Commissioner and the amount paid was adjusted. Interest was ordered and penalty was imposed under Section 11AC. In Appeal against order-inoriginal dated 14.03.2007, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same may be treated as duty paid under protest and limitation provided under Section 11B is not applicable. He submits that the issue on merit whether duty is payable on other charges has been settled in favour of the appellant only by Tribunal s order dated 29.09.2011. Therefore, the one year period under Section 11B is applicable from the date of Tribunal s order i.e. from 29.09.2011 whereas the appellant filed refund claim on 05.05.2012 hence the same is well within the time-limit and same cannot be hit by limitation. He submits that in view of above, the appellants claim is not time barred. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Indian Oil Corporation Limited - 2013 (291) ELT 449 (Tri-Ahmd.) admitted by Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
