9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty has been paid by M/s. ICL under protest and credited the sanctioned refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that will be bar of unjust enrichment - Held that the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that the refund claim filed by the appellant is not hit by time bar is not correct, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point is set aside since the refund claim is time b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in respect of conveyor belt there was a dispute. Pending the settlement of dispute M/s. International Conveyors Ltd. were paying duty under protest which was recovered from M/s. SECL. Subsequently, when the issue of classification was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of M/s. ICL they filed a refund claim which was rejected by the Asst. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 10t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has also filed a Cross Objection in respect of the appeal filed by M/s. SECL. 4. Heard both the sides. 5. Shri A.K. Prasad, learned Jt. CDR pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that the refund claim filed by M/s. SECL is not hit by limitation is incorrect and contradictory to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Mumbai II v. Allied Photographics India L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the duty under protest. He, therefore, pleaded that the refund claim is time barred and since it is time barred there is no merit in the appeal filed by M/s. SECL. 6. Shri. Abhay P. Kolte, Advocate, learned Counsel for M/s. SECL relied on the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Winder vs. CCE Allahabad - 2003 (154) ELT 350 (S.C.) and further submitted that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants own case as reported in 2010 (252) E.L.T. 140 (Tri. Mum) wherein the same view has been taken where held that the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that the refund claim filed by the appellant is not hit by time bar is not correct, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point is set aside since the refund claim is time barred. The other issue regarding the question of applicability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
