2011 (9) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s prevented to make refund claim for reasons beyond its control, the appellant has no claim to sustain. Appeal dismissed. - ST/1787/2010-SM - 638/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 13-9-2011 - Shri D.N. Panda,J. Shri Vikrant Kakaria, Advocate for Appellants Shri B.L. Soni, D.R. for Respondent Per D.N. Panda: Learned Counsel Sri Kakaria vehemently opposed the first a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t refund irrespective of lapse of time. Shri Kakaria, further submits that limitation was prescribed much later in law incorporating clause (ee) to Explanation (B) of subsection (5) to section 11B Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. On the other hand learned D.R. supports the order of the authorities below submitting that when the appellant claimed refund after 4 years of disposal of writ petition by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h or at least within a reasonable period of time. Limitation prescribed by newly enacted provision is to bar belated claims. When lis come to an end the parties should exercise their right without delay. The right accrues is enforceable within a reasonable period. Law of limitation gives valuable right to peace. In absence of any evidence on record to appreciate that the appellant was prevented to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X