9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is required to pay duty from Cenvat credit account or PLA was not settled before the High Court order dated 29/3/2012 therefore there was no occasion for appellant to file any refund claim - claim filed within stipulated time. The matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority with the observation that refund claim is not time bar - appeal allowed by way of refund. - E/89243/13 - A/87771/16/SMB - Dated:- 3-6-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. Brijesh Patnaik, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. BPS/52/M-V/2013 dated 12/9/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who concurring with the Adjudicating authority dismissed the appeal holding that refund claim filed by the appellant is time barred therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri. Brijesh Pathak, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the fact is not under dispute that duty was paid twice, firstly, at the stage of clearance through Cenvat and the second time through cash when the demand was raised during the pendency of the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the demand of cash payment instead of payment made through Cenvat account. He submits that under any circumstances law does not permit duty to be charged twice on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was filed immediately after the payment made in cash therefore refund should not have been rejected on time bar. 4. Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that the fact is not under dispute that the refund sought for by the appellant is in respect of the duty paid through Cenvat account in the year 2002-03 and the refund was filed in 2013. As per Section 11B the refund should have been filed within one year from the date of payment of duty therefore refund claim filed by the appellant is clearly time bar, therefore the refund was correctly held as time bar by the both the lower authorities. 5. I have car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is required to pay duty from Cenvat credit account or PLA was not settled before the High Court order dated 29/3/2012 therefore there was no occasion for appellant to file any refund claim. I am therefore of the view that refund was filed by the appellant within stipulated time. However both the lower authorities have rejected the claim only on the ground of time bar. I find that there is no dispute that in respect of clearances of the same goods, appellant had paid excise duty twice. In the proceedings before the High court it was settled that appellant required to pay duty from PLA, the appellant indeed paid the duty from the PLA, the amount of duty paid by d`ebiting Cenvat credit is refundable to the appellant. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
