9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a penalty of Rs.7,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. The appellant paid the duty of Rs.67,713/- from RG23A Part-II entry No. 39/08.04.199 and penalty of Rs.7.000/- vide entry No. 03/08.04.199 from PLA. The appellant filed appeal against the said order-in-original before Commissioner (A), Central Excise, Rajkot who dismissed the appeal vide his order-in-appeal No.701/2000/Commr(A)/Raj dated 29.09.2000. The appellant preferred an appeal against the above order-in-appeal before CESTAT, Mumbai, who vide Order No. A/2211/WZB/2005/CI/EB dated 05.12.2005 allowed the appeal for Rs.19,984/- out of Rs.67,713/- and also reduced penalty to Rs.2,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment made under protest. Accordingly, in the case of Maihar Cement vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2004 (178) E.L.T. 991 (Tri-Del], it was held that the claim of refund is not hit by time bar. Therefore, it is quite clear that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 would be applicable in respect of such refund claims since all the decisions cited by the learned counsel have discussed the provisions of Section 11B. In the case of Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2005 (184) E.L.T. 213 (Tri-Del)] it was held that time limit provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 is not applicable to consequential refunds. Nevertheless, the decision in the case of Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o know they are entitled to the refund. In view of the fact that they have filed the refund claim well within one year from the introduction of the new provision of law vide Section 11B(5)(B)(ec) inserted with effect from 11-5-2007, I am of the view that the ground of time-bar cannot also be invoked in this case." 7. From the above observations, it can be seen that the Tribunal had considered the amended Section and since the refund claim in that case was filed within one year from the date of amendment, treated the same as a liberal consideration of provisions and decided that the refund claim should be allowed. By this, conclusion is that, Proviso introduced in 2007 is applicable in respect of past cases also and the only view or interpr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
