9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a refund claim of Rs. 45,500/- on 10-5-1996. The payment of this amount was made on 27-2-1993. The refund claim is made on the ground that the CEGAT in his order No. A/339/96-NB dated 19-1-1996 has allowed their appeal. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 25-9-1996 rejected the refund claim. He observed in his order that as per Section 11B(1) a pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no limitations in implementing an order passed by any adjudication forum and consequential relief is not to be barred by time invoking provision of limitations of Section 11B. He relied on the following cases :- 1. Adarsh Metal Corp. v. UOI 1993 (67) E.L.T. 483 (Raj.) 2. CCE, Bombay v. M/s. S.K. Engg. Ltd. 1996 (83) E.L.T. 148. 3. Delhi Bottling Co. v. CCE, Delhi 1996 (76) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of General Engg. Works v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 86 (Tribunal). 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. Respectfully, following the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra) as followed in the case of General Engg. Works, I uphold the order passed by the lower appellate authority and dismiss the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
