9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) within time and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to extend the period of limitation in terms of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Admittedly, the appellant did not follow the advice given by the adjudicating authority vide letter dt. 22.06.2017. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is barred by limitation - Appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 61580 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60257/2020 - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Gupta, Authorised Representative ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al filed by the appellant and directed to the department to release the amount within 30 days alongwith consequential relief. Thereafter, the appellant wrote a letter on 07.11.2016 to release the refund amount alongwith interest. On the letter dt. 07.11.2016, the adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim on 17.01.2017, but did not pay any interest neither gave any findings on the interest. Thereafter, on 25.01.2017 the appellant wrote a letter to the adjudicating authority to release the interest amount for the intervening period. On 22.06.2017, the adjudicating authority wrote a letter to the appellant that the issue of interest has been decided by the order dt. 17.01.2017 and if you are aggrieved, the appeal can be filed against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority for pursuing the claim of interest is not barred by limitation as held by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. To support her contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Khamdhenu Ispat Ltd vs. CCE, Jaipur- I 2017 (358) ELT 380 (Tri. Del.). 4. On the other hand, the learned A.R. opposes the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that in the order dt. 17.01.2017 the refund claim has been allowed and did not entertain the issue of interest and if the appellant was aggrieved by that order, the same was required to be challenged by the appellant within two months of received of the said order, which the appellant failed to do so. He further submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 21.11.2017 again answered to the appellant that if they are aggrieved by the order dt. 17.01.2017, they can challenge the same. For better appreciation, the said letter is also extracted herein below: 7. On going through the letters dt. 22.06.2017 and 21.11.2017, I find that on both the occasions, the Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant that if they are aggrieved by the order dt. 17.01.2017, they can file an appeal against the said order. Instead of filing the appeal against the intimation dt. 22.06.2017, the appellant continued to pursue the matter with the adjudicating authority. In fact, the letter dt. 22.06.2017 clearly directs the appellant that in case you feel aggrieved by the said order, you can file an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
