9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (A.R) ORDER Appeal No. E/258/2011-Mum is on the issue of refund of Rs. 96,122/-, the refund of the appellant was rejected on the ground of time bar. 2. Appeal No. E/141/2012-Mum is on the issue of demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 96,122/- on the ground that the appellant have suo moto taken the recredit for which the refund claim was also filed as mentioned in the above ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8.9.2009, about their intention of taking the Cenvat Credit of the excess paid duty was also submitted to the department. The Ld. Counsel also invited my attention to the department's letter dt. 24.12.2009, wherein with reference to the appellants letter dt. 8.9.2009, on the issue of recredit the department has informed that proper procedure for refund/re-credit, as per Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversed. 5. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant filed a formal refund application belatedly that is after 1 year from the date of payment of excess duty, therefore both the lower authorities have held the refund is time barred. The appeal of the appellant is not maintainable. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs. 96,122/-. Therefore, in my considered view, the legitimate claim of refund stand made on 15.6.2009 itself even though the formal refund application was filed subsequently, therefore the refund cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar. Since, the lower authority has rejected the refund on time bar alone he has not verified the aspect of unjust enrichment, I, therefore remand the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
