9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty and interest, definitely such applicants are not entitled to claim such benefit provided under the second proviso to Section 11B. Computation of period of one year with reference to the relevant date is not an issue for adjudication as the very case of the appellant is such period of limitation, i.e. one year, is not applicable to his case as the duty was paid under protest. Since the duty paid by the applicant was subsequent to 20.09.1991, he is entitled to the benefit of second proviso to Section 11B, therefore the Tribunal was erroneous in setting aside the order of the first appellate authority which granted the benefit to the applicant - Decided in favour of assessee. - C. E. Appeal. No. 10 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2014 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed in favour of the appellant. This was challenged by the Department before the Tribunal and Tribunal, agreeing with the stand of the Department, allowed the appeal of the Department opining that the claim for refund is beyond the period of one year as contemplated under Section 11B. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant contending that by virtue of second proviso to Section 11B(1) of the Act, if any duty and interest is payable and if such duty was paid under protest, the period of limitation of one year will not apply to such claims. He also places reliance on (2012) 50 VST 469 (Karn.) in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore v. KVR Construction and [2014 (299) E.L.T.305 (Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is applicable in the light of second proviso to Section 11B. Therefore, the claim of the applicant was held to be maintainable and directed refund of the said amounts. 6. As against this, learned counsel representing the Department places reliance on Dena Snuff (P) Ltd.(supra) in support of his contention that even in respect of payment of duty and interest, if any, under protest, period of limitation is applicable as indicated at paragraph 5 of the said judgment. He also took us through paragraph 2 in order to contend that the classification list which was the controversy in that case, date of final order to contend that from what date the period of limitation has to be counted in order to decide the relevant date as provided in Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t when duty and interest payable if any made by the applicants. If no such liberty or protest is indicated at the time of payment of duty and interest, definitely such applicants are not entitled to claim such benefit provided under the second proviso to Section 11B. 9. In the present case computation of period of one year with reference to the relevant date is not an issue for adjudication as the very case of the appellant is such period of limitation, i.e. one year, is not applicable to his case as the duty was paid under protest. Since the duty paid by the applicant was subsequent to 20.09.1991, he is entitled to the benefit of second proviso to Section 11B, therefore the Tribunal was erroneous in setting aside the order of the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
