9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The issue involved in the present case is if the refund filed by the respondent was time barred or otherwise. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim being time barred on the ground that the respondent has not paid the duty under protest in respect of certain Bills of Entry. The adjudicating authority, however, sanctioned part of the refund in respect of some Bills of Entry holding that in respect of those Bills of Entry, the duty was paid under protest. Being aggrieved by the rejection portion of the refund in the Order-in-Original, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has allowed the appeal. Therefore, the Revenue is before us. 3. Shri M.K. Sarangi, learned J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. Therefore, for this reason also the refund was filed on 03.02.2003 i.e. within one year of the date of order on classification by this Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his finding on the issue of time bar given the following findings : - "Further, at the time of personal hearing, appellant referred to the register maintained by the deptt. for lodging the protest, which was called for at the request of the appellant where out of 22 Bills of Entry, in 14 cases the protest were lodged and registered at Sr. No. 349, 351, 352, 353 and 364 of 2000 and at Sr. 33 of 2001 and it was also admitted by the deptt at no's XXXIX of the case fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent is under protest. Hence, the refund is not time barred. We also observe that refund has arisen consequent to order of CESTAT vide No. CI/1464/WZB/2002 dated 18.5.2002. The refund claim was filed on 3.2.2003. It is settled legal position that in case of refund arising out of the order settling the demand matter, a period of one year for filing refund is available from the date of the said order. For this reason also, the present case of refund is not hit by limitation.
6. In view of our above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the same is sustained and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
