9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the 2nd respondent rejected the claim as barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order seeking the following reliefs; "i. to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1st and 2nd Respondents to refund to the Petitioner the excise duty illegally levied and collected with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the 3rd respondent to take Ext.P1 in appeal. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board, the Board is entitled to challenge Ext.P1 order before this Court. It is further submitted that insofar as excise duty is not payable in respect of the purchases for execution of the contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board, the payment of excise duty by the 3rd resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (34) E.L.T. 449 (Bom.) 7. Industrial Plastic Corporation Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India, 1992 (57) E.L.T. 390 (Bom), 8. Fluidomat Limited. v. Union of India, [1997] 57 ECC 69 (MP), 9. Paharpur Cooling Tower Limited v. Union of India and another, [1991] 36 ECC 151 (All), 10. Rajkot Fine Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1997) 10 SCC 662, and 11. Assistant Collector of C.Ex. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
