9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is not covered by such exceptions like payment of duty under protest or the assessments being provisionally. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. [1994 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that the authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and are required to decide the disputes in terms of the law provided in the said Act - Tribunal being creature of the Act, is bound by the provisions of the Act and even though the appellant’s refund claim of interest is admissible on merits, the same having been filed after the normal period of one year provided under Section 11 B, is hit by the bar of limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t claimed that no interest liability would arise against them. In such a situation the matter travelled upto Tribunal, who vide their Final Order No. A/51545-51547/2015-EX[DB] dated 07.05.2015 and Final Order No. A/53520/2015-SM[BR] dated 24.11.2015, agreed with the appellant and allowed their appeal by holding that no interest liability would arise. 4. Based upon the said decision of the Tribunal in respect of the appellant s Delhi Unit they filed refund claim of interest amount of ₹ 4,08,718/- in one appeal and of ₹ 2,99,027/- in second appeal for the period as referred above. On 23.09.2016, the said refund claims stand rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority as also by Appellate Authority on the point of time bar. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed in terms of the provisions of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act. Admittedly in the present case, the refund claims filed by the appellant is beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. 7. The issue is as to whether the same would be hit by the bar of limitation or the same had to be allowed in the light of the Tribunal decisions in the appellant s Delhi Unit case. As already observed the present appellant did not keep the matter alive by filing any appeal against the confirmation of interest or deposit of the same. All the refunds, have to be claimed in terms of Section 11 B of the Act, which prescribed a period within which such claims should have been filed by an assessee, subject to some exceptions. Admittedly in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
