Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (5) TMI 403 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Representation of the appellants in the proceedings. 2. Applicability of limitation provisions of Section 11B to the refund claim. Representation of the Appellants: The judgment begins by addressing the issue of representation of the appellants in the proceedings. The representative of the Appellant-Company, Mr. M. Kannan, informed the tribunal that their Counsel was unavailable due to a prior commitment. However, Mr. Kannan lacked the necessary authorization from the company. Despite multiple adjournments allowed previously, it was concluded that there was no proper representation for the appellants. Consequently, the tribunal proceeded to deal with the appeal in the absence of the appellants' authorized representative. Applicability of Limitation Provisions of Section 11B: The main contention raised by the appellants in the appeal was regarding the applicability of the limitation provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to their refund claim. The appellants argued that the limitation provisions were not applicable to their claim based on Notification No. 11/2002. However, the tribunal, after examining the order of the appellate Commissioner, found that the provisions of Notification 11/2002 were procedural and not substantive. The notification required refund claims to be filed within the period specified under Section 11B. As the claim in question was filed beyond the specified period, the appellate Commissioner's decision to reject the claim was upheld. The tribunal concluded that the appeal was to be dismissed based on the above analysis and interpretation of the relevant legal provisions. In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of representation of the appellants in the proceedings and the applicability of limitation provisions to the refund claim. The tribunal proceeded with the appeal due to lack of proper representation, and it dismissed the appeal based on the finding that the refund claim was time-barred according to the provisions of Section 11B and Notification 11/2002.
|