9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. These 2 appeals by the same appellant involve common issue and, therefore, are being dealt with by a common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The appellant procured cement from the manufacturer M/s. Jaypee Bella. The appellant was procuring the said goods for use in a project funded by W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim is within 1 year, and as per the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 the above conditions are not necessary. In view of the above, the refund claim is allowed subject to the time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. (d) The appellant has filed this appeal objecting to the conditions imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claim shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of M/s. Sang Fasteners (Pvt.) Ltd. v. UOI Ors., reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 591 (Bom.) = 1988 (17) ECR 315 (Bombay). He also relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India Others v. ITC Ltd., reported in 1993 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 326. 5. Learned DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claims on merits. He has merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturer and collection of duty by the department cannot be held to be unauthorized or without the authority of law. The decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. (supra) relied upon by the learned D.R., in our opinion, squarely applies to the present case. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bound by the limitation provided under the Act and the Rules. It was not open to the appellant to claim that even though the period of limitation was provided under the Statute for refund the application filed by it should be processed and considered under the general law of limitation. 7. In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeals. The appeals are, therefore, rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
