9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of duty deposited acquired the character of revenue deposit - there is no limitation for refund of Revenue deposit - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1925/2008-EX [SM] - A/71134/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Amit Mahajan, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is, whether the appellant who had deposited the tax, as their claim for being exempt under Notification No. 74/93-CE dated 28/02/1993, was not accepted by the Department and subsequently when the matter came to be settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the other units of the U. P. State Electricity Board engaged in manufacture of PCC Poles, following the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court, held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28/02/1993. 3. Pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court order and also the order in appeal dated 28/12/2006. The appellant filed refund claim for the period November, 2005 to March, 2006. On 17/09/2007, which was adjudicated vide OIO dated 31/01/2008 and the claim was rejected on the ground of limitation under the provisions of Section 11B read with Explanation No. B (f) under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue in implementation of the notification. The benefit under which became available, from the moment the notification was issued, limitation provided in Section 11B(1) is not applicable to goods which were entitled to exemption. Therefore, even assuming that there was some delay, it could not stand in way of the petitioner (assessee). 6. The learned A. R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 7. Having considered rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I hold that under the facts and circumstances, the appellant have deposited the duty under protest. Secondly, in view of the exemption notification being held applicable in favour of the appellant, subsequently by Hon ble Supreme Court order, the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
