9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order]. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. RKR (130)223/07 dated 13-7-2007 vide which the appellant s claim for refund has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein claimed refund of duty on vehicles cleared by them as Taxi under the provision of Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices, the date of payment as mentioned in the table is 5th and 4th of the next month. He submits that the provisions of Notification 6/2002 clearly indicate that the refund claim should be filed before expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. He submits that they have paid the duty on 5th and 4th of next month. 4. The learned SDR, on the other hand, submits that the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be in order and the appellant has fulfilled the condition as stipulated in 51C(1) of Notification No. 6/2002. 7. On perusal of the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the date of invoice as date of payment of duty. It is noticed that during the relevant period the date for discharge of duty liability was 5th of next month as provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
