2011 (1) TMI 826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... P. Singh, Authorized Representative (SDR) for the respondent.   Per. Rakesh Kumar :-   The appellant are manufacturer of leaf springs chargeable to Central Excise Duty. They also avail Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. At the end of financial year 2004-2005 when they opted for availing of SSI exemption for the next financial year, as per the provisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Bahal, Partner of the appellant company, pleaded that since the refund claim is of Cenvat credit, the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B will not apply and that since the amount actually reversed was higher than the amount which was required to be reversed, the extra amount paid cannot be retained by the department and its refund should be allowed and the limitation period prescribed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r provisions of Section 11B. In view of this, the same would be covered by the limitation period prescribed under this section and since there is no dispute that the refund claim had been filed after expiry of the prescribed limitation period of one year from the relevant date, the same has been rightly rejected as time barred. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X