9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n paid under protest. On the facts noted above, admittedly, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Second Proviso to Section 11B(1). The relevant date for the purpose of this case, is the one as defined under Section 11B(5) Explanation (B)(e), which states that the relevant date shall be, in the case of a person other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of goods by such person. Thus, the definition of relevant date clearly stares against the case of the appellant and as rightly held by the Tribunal, the claim for refund is only barred by limitation. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No 562 of 2006 and C.M.P. No. 2188 of 2006 - - - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order passed by the Revenue. In doing so, the first Appellate Authority held that the judgment of this Court is a judgment in remand and therefore, the appellant/assessee is entitled to take advantage of the decision of this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, framed the following three questions for consideration : (i) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of the decision of this Court in the writ petitions? (ii) Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation? and (iii) Whether it is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment? 3. While discussing the three issues, the Tribunal thought fit to take up the issue whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and interest before the expiry of six months from the relevant date, in the manner prescribed and the application should be accompanied by such documents or other evidence to establish that the duty of excise has been paid. Second Proviso to Section 11B(1) provides that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty of excise has been paid under protest. On the facts noted above, admittedly, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Second Proviso to Section 11B(1). The relevant date for the purpose of this case, is the one as defined under Section 11B(5) Explanation (B)(e), which states that the relevant date shall be, in the case of a person other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of goods by such person. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
