2004 (6) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue involved relates to admissibility of the refund claim which was rejected by the original authority on the ground that, the claim was made beyond the period of six months from the date of payment. It is revealed that, the amount of Rs. 59,94,279/- was deposited by the respondents in terms of directions given to the respondents by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rwise has to be treated as payment under protest and accordingly he allowed the appeal. 2. The revenue's appeal is only stating that the department has appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the Tribunal in favour of the respondents and the claim is time-barred. 3. Heard both sides. 4. So far as the appeal of the department filed in the Supreme Court against the Tribunal order is co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to hear the appeal and the same amount cannot be classified as an amount of duty, so as to attract the bar of limitation contained in Section 11B of the Act. Consequently, the claim could not be rejected by application of time-bar as has been attempted by the original authority. 6. Accordingly, we see no merit in the revenue appeal and the same is hereby rejected.  
Case laws, Decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X