2004 (3) TMI 674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is against rejection of refund claim as time-barred. The appellants had cleared on payment of duty certain quantities of their final product some time in 1998. The customer found the goods defective and hence returned the same. The appellants, upon receipt of the returned goods, gave the requisite intimation to the Department as required under Rule 173L o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or before 22-8-1999 as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The claim was filed on 23-8-1999 with a delay of one day. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone this delay and held the claim to be time-barred. 2. I have heard both sides and considered their submissions. As rightly pleaded by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal, the full period of si .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tation Act and has, in this connection, cited the decision in the case of CCE v. S.A.I.L [1992 (61) E.L.T. 732 (Tribunal)]. The reliance placed on the Limitation Act, however, cannot be accepted inasmuch as it has been held by the Apex Court that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings. 3. Having found that there is no delay in the filing of the refu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X