9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dated 17.01.2014 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim of the appellant being barred by time by upholding the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant had imported Heavy Melting Steel Scrap falling under CTH 72044900 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under Bills of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim has been filed after the statutory period of six months stipulated under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as such the claims are time barred. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dated 24.03.2014 rejected the refund claim as time barred by upholding the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Vs. R.M. Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 45 (Tri.-Bang.) d) CC (Import), Mumbai Vs. Nicolas Piramal India Ltd. - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 99 (Tri.-Mumbai) e) Union of India Vs. ITC Ltd. - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) f) Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CC (Imports), Mumbai - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 255 (Tri.-Mum.) 4. On the other hand the learned AR submitted that the amount paid by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others - (1997) 5 SCC 536 = 1997 (89) ELT 247 (S.C) held that the refund application beyond specified period under Section 11B of the Act could not be entertained and this decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. A206 (S.C). Similarly Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
