9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. Shri Gopal Krishna Mundhra, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The Revenue is in appeal before us against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the rejection of refund claim for Rs. 21,89,834/. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the time limit provided under Section 11B is applicable, when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rospective effect. 2. Heard both sides. The ld. DR submits that refund claim in this case was filed on 24-1-2001 i.e. after amendment of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was amended by Notification No. 45/99 dated 25-6-99. He also pointed out that the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TVS Suzuki Ltd. is not applicable since the refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TVS Suzuki Ltd., refund claim was made on 5-7-1996 i.e. prior to the date on which proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 came into force. However, we find that in this case assessment was finalized on 11-1-99, but the refund claim was filed in 2001. Therefore, TVS Suzuki Ltd. case cannot be applied on fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Therefore, if the officer finalizing the assessment were to follow the law as it existed, he had to sanction the refund and pay the same after passing order of finalization of provisional assessment. Therefore date of filing of the claim is not relevant and the refund should have been made suo motu. Hence, order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) has to be upheld. In view of this discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
