9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in favor of the Appellant in the year 2004, which enabled the Appellant to file refund claim within the period prescribed u/s 11B of CEA, 1944. It is immaterial whether the Revenue had filed the Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). The Appellant had not filed any claim after the said favorable decision in the year 2004, but it was filed only in the year 2008 - the refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the period April 2002 to September 2002 and October 2002 to February 2003, they had deposited the duty during the proceeding initiated against them. The Appeals were decided in their favour by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by orders dt.30.12.2004 and 29.07, 2004, respectively. Against said orders, Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed on 07.08.2008 and 30.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be made. It is his contention that since the issue was decided in their favour by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) though in 2004, but the entire proceedings were concluded only in 2008, when Revenue's appeal arising out of the said OIAs were dismissed DY the Tribunal. Therefore, the refund claims were not barred by limitation. 5. Per contra, the learned Authorized Representative for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even if it is assumed that duty was paid under protest in the year 2003 as claimed by the Appellant. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. The short point to be addressed is : whether the aforesaid amount of ₹ 3,03,525/- paid on 15.05.2003 under protest is a not hit by limitation, when the refund was claimed in the year 2008. It is the contention of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). The Appellant had not filed any claim after the said favorable decision in the year 2004, but it was filed only in the year 2008. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. in Dena Snuff (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), the refund claim is barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeals are devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
