9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order-in-appeal dated 29-1-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22-2-1993, the excisable goods belonging to the respondents were seized by the revenue authorities and the goods were provisionally released on payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 56,160/- alongwith furnishing of a bond of Rs. 15 lakh wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the refund claim was clearly time barred as the amount was paid in March, 1993 and the refund was filed in the year 1995 after the adjudication. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). He submits that the refund claim is time barred. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere taken into possession. After this order, the respondents asked for the refund of the amount of Rs. 56,160/- deposited at the time of provisional release of the goods. 6. The revenue relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Miles India Limited (supra) where the Supreme Court held that the authorities are bound by the provision of the statute and in case of refund the time limit p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of which proceedings were dropped. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order held as under : I have gone through the records of the case very carefully. I observe that amount in question Rs. 56,160/- was paid by the appellants persuant to the directions contained in the order for provisional release of the seized goods. Subsequently, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
