9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herwise. 4. The facts that leads to the dispute are as under: Date Description 23.11.2006 Intimation to the department that they have issued invoice No. 6000697 dated 22.11.2006 for supply of naptha which was cancelled by PRCN No. 6000737 dated 22.11.2006 as the assessable rate on the invoice is wrong and have issued fresh invoice No. 6000738 dated 22.11.2006 04.05.2007 & 16.05.2007 Submission of refund claim by the Appellant being the amount erroneously excess paid 04.06.2007 Department vide their letter dated 04.06.2007 has communicated the additional details required. (This letter is not received by the Appellant) 31.10.2011 The Appellant again requested for sanction of refund. 21.06.2013 Appellant has requested for sancti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by the authorities. Subsequently on receiving the documents from the appellant, the adjudication authority is rejecting the refund claim as being filed beyond the period of limitation, is an incorrect proposition as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Arya Exports and Industries [2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del)] wherein in paragraph no. 4 their lordships have recorded as under : 4. Before parting with the file we may also notice here that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 17th July, 2001 does not suffer from any patent, legal or other infirmity. The assessee had filed an application under Rule 57F(4) for refund of the excise duty wrongfully recovered from him. This application was declined on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im filed subsequently was continuation of the original claim, and therefore, not hit by the time-bar under Section 11B. Accordingly, I hold that in both these appeals the refund claim cannot be denied on the ground of time-bar. I, therefore, set aside the impugned Order and allow both the appeals." 5. Similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Repro Ltd., [2016 (43) STR 203 (Tri-Mum)] (wherein I was one of the Member) the Tribunal considered the entire question on limitation and in paragraph 11 held as under: 11. With this elapse of time in finalizing the claim for refunds the validity of which was sub silentio not questioned, the original authority appeared to have been actuated by the probability of claim for interest aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
