9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate - for the appellant Ms. Neha Garg, A.R. - for the respondent Per V. Padmanabhan : The present appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The assessee as well as the Revenue have filed appeals separately against the impugned order targeting different potions of the order. Both the appeals are being decided i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible on merits but he ordered for crediting the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Revenue is in appeal against the portion of the impugned order where the refund has been held to be admissible on merits. On the other hand, the assessee is in appeal claiming that the entire amount of refund should be paid to them in cash. 3. We have heard Ms. Asmita A. Naya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is admissible on merits. 5. The original adjudicating authority has taken the view that an amount of Rs. 3,26,770/- has been deposited by the assessee on 21.11.2005. The refund claim stands filed on 12.3.2007. Therefore, the claim will be hit by time bar as per Section 11B (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the period is beyond one year. Consequently, we uphold this portion of the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit. We find it difficult to accept this point of view Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 clearly prescribes the time limit for refund of any amount paid as tax. In the present case, the amount deposited is in the nature of service tax. Consequently, the refund will be governed by the provisions of Section 11B. Inasmuch as the assessee has not submitted any proof to the effect that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
