9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 19.9.2003. Appellant did not produce accounts of not taking credit during the period 29.12.1999 to 19.09.2003. In view of the above facts, first appellate authority has correctly rejected the appeal of the appellant with respect to refund of ₹ 5,32,481/-, as the appellant has also not produced any records with this appeal to the extent that no credit of ₹ 5,32,481/- was taken as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the refund claim as time barred and also for non submission of documents under which the amounts were paid. 2. When the case was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. An adjournment request dated 09.3.2015 was brought to the notice of the bench, sought on the grounds that Advocate of the appellant was busy in a ROA before the Fema Court, Delhi. The adjournment s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red as filed much beyond one year as required under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Heard learned Authorised Representative and perused the case records. In view of the facts recorded in Para 4.2 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.11.2010, refund of ₹ 5,32,481/- was ordered to be taken as Cenvat credit as per Order-in-Appeal dated 29.12.1999 and unit was undertaking manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment will not be applicable to refund of redemption fine paid by the appellant. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant to the extent of refund of Rs. One lakh is required to be allowed. 6. Appeal of the appellant is thus allowed only to the extent indicated in Para 5 above, with consequential relief. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
