9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad reported as [2009 -TMI - 76196 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - It stands held that, after considering various precedent decisions that the amounts deposited during the course of investigation and appropriated by the adjudicating authority on confirmation of demand, are required to be refunded without deciding the same on the terms of limitation, when such confirmation ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection, the appellants deposited the amounts on various dates. 2. Subsequently, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants for confirmation of such deposits so made by them. After issuance of show cause notice and after following the due adjudication procedure, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the amount of Service Tax so deposited by the appellants under the directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed part of the refund claims which were within the period of one year from the date of deposits; rejected the balance refund claim as barred by limitation. Appeals against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the present impugned order. Hence, the appeals filed by the appellants. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that there is no dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn the refund claim arising as a result of sanction of refund order, such claims are not to be rejected on the issue of limitation. One such reference can be made to a latest order of the Tribunal in the case of Opel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad reported as [2010 (249) ELT 408 (Tri-Del)]. It stands held that, after considering various precedent decisions that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
