9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rejection of refund claim by the original authority on the ground of limitation cannot sustain - appeal allowed. - E/650/2010 - Final Order No.40069/2018 - Dated:- 3-1-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri R. Sai Prashanth, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturers of power driven pumps under the brand name CRI belonging to others along with their own brand name AKASH and they were availing SSI exemption under the Notification No.9/2003-CE. During audit it appeared that the appellant was also availing exemption for clearances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim was resubmitted. He places reliance on the following judgments/decisions in support of his contention:- a. United Phosphorous Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2005 (184) ELT 240 (Guj.) b. CCE Vs. Arya Exports and Industries - 2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del.) c. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary - 2013 (291) ELT 189 (Mad.) d. Abhedya Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2016 (340) ELT 398 (Tri.-Hyd.) e. Duraline India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2009 (237) ELT 689 (Tri.-Mum.) f. Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2002 (150) ELT 331 (Tri.-Del.) 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR submits that the refund had been rejected vide the letter dated 25.06.2004, which is very much a decision in respect of the claim submitted by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the claim. Once the relevant date is taken as 07.05.2004, the refund claim is found to be filed within the period prescribed under Section 11 B ibid. In arriving at this conclusion, we draw sustenance from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Jaipur - 2017 (345) ELT 132 (Tri.-Del.). The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- 3. It is an admitted fact on record that the refund application was initially filed by the appellant on 30-6-1994. However, the same was returned by the Central Excise Department to the appellant on the ground that the order of the Tribunal in allowing the Modvat credit on Grinding Media has not been accepted by the Department and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application was filed within the statutory time frame, in my opinion, there is no delay in filing the subsequent application on 19-10-2011, which was in continuation to the earlier application dated 30-6-1994, involving the same set of facts. Similar view has also taken in Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V.s Joint Secretary, New Delhi - 2013 (291) ELT 189 (Mad.). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, it is noted that the petitioner had submitted the rebate claim on 5-11-2007, along with the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
