9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant herein was allotted a contract of work for rehabilitation of Bareilly to Badaun Road of 45 Km. length of State Highway No. 33 under World Bank loan assistance and approved by the Government of India for implementation by UPPWD, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The benefit of Notification No. 108/95 dated 28-8-95 was claimed by the appellant who applied for certificate from the concerned autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 for the period 15-1-2004 to 22-1-2004 were submitted at Bareilly on 4-1-2005 and claim for refund of Rs. 25,944.60 for the period 17-2-2004 were filed in Central Excise Division, Bareilly and later on submitted at Central Excise Division, Aligarh on 19-3-2005. The claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation (the date of re-submission was taken into account for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so certificate showing details of HSD supplied to them was also submitted to the Superintendent, Mathura. However, he upheld the finding of the adjudicating authority on time bar as well as for the other reasons contained in the adjudication order. 2. As regards the plea of the appellant that the claims for refund are not barred by limitation. I see merit in their submission namely that the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he discrepancy earlier for the reason that the show cause notice did not propose rejection of the claim on any ground other than the ground of time-bar. Therefore, while accepting the plea of the appellant that the claims for refund are not hit by bar of limitation, I remit the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after considering the various contentions made by the appellants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
