1998 (8) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri A.R.S. Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appeal is against the rejection of the claim for refund of duty paid by the appellant on the ground of limitation and unjust enrichment. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. Duty had been paid in pursuance of the order of the Assistant Collector that the appellant w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stries v. Collector of Central Excise - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 45 (Tribunal) = 1997 (21) RLT 654 and Harish Textile Engg. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 277 (Tribunal) = 1995 (26) ETR 271 the time limit specified in Rule 11B will not apply. 4. The question of the appellant having to show that incidence of duty has not been passed on also will not apply for the reason that a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X