9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to their cenvat account. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/76016/2015, CO-75888/2015 - FO/75834/2018 - Dated:- 24-4-2018 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri S.S.Chottopadhyay,Suptd.(AR) for the for the Appellant/Applicant (s) Shri D.K.Dutta, Consultant for Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Cigarette classifiable under Chapter 24 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the Budget 2012-13 vide Finance Bill 2012 the basic Excise duty on cigarette beyond 65 mm length was enhanced. By the Departmental clarification vide MF (DR)DO letter F No. 334/1/2012 TRU dated 01.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Moreover, the period of time limit has to be reckoned with from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In the instant case, the cause of action has arisen on account of CBEC circular (supra) dated 11.02.2014 and consequentially refund claim was filed on 15.07.2014 which is well within time limit. The period of limitation has to be reckoned with only from the date of cause of action is supported from the decisions in the case of Karnik Maritime Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai IV [2007 (6) S.T.R. 314 (Tri.Mumbai) wherein it is held as under Limitation commences from date of discovery of error, as prescribed by Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963 Period of six months prescribed by Section 11 B of CEA, 1944 found inappl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of refund but in OIO, the lower authority admitted in para 4 of Discussion and Findings that there was no unjust enrichment and took a new stand on ground of limitation to reject the refund claim which was not proposed in SCN. I find that in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex, Mumbai-IV vs. Beekalene Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. [2008(229) ELT 659 (Bom.)] Involving refund the Mumbai High Court has held that when the ground of limitation is not indicated in the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority does not have the powers to reject the refund by travelling beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice. In this case the refund claim was rejected on the limitation not indicated in the SCN and the Commissioner (Appeals) also remanded the matter to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
