TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in favour of the appellant. Consequently, they were entitled for refund of the pre-deposit made in the year 2001. The appellants made a claim for refund of the pre-deposit only in the year 2007 – held that - where pre-deposits are made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the decision goes in favour of the appellant and the pre-deposited amount should be refunded suo motu by the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (A). However, in the appeal before the Commissioner (A), an order was passed in favour of the appellant. Consequently, they were entitled for refund of the pre-deposit made in the year 2001. The appellants made a claim for refund of the pre-deposit only in the year 2007. There was nearly delay of six years. Applying the law of limitation, the Original Authority rejected the refund claim. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged that the lower authority could not have applied the general law of limitation to reject the refund claim. In any case, since the amount is a deposit, Section 11B is not applicable and the revenue ought to have suo motu refunded the same. My attention was also invited to Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana - AIR 1980 (SC) 1037 wherein it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Konark Cylinders v. CCE, BBSR - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 454 (Tri.-Kolkata) (iii) Nelco Limited v. UOI - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.) (iv) CCE, Chennai-III v. Consul Consolidated P. Ltd. - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 792 (Tri.-Chennai) (v) Wimco Limited v. UOI - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 628 (All.). 4. On a very careful consideration of the issue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
