9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, 2018 for the cash balance of 30 June 2016 the same appears to be hit by limitation of period of one year - Appellant claimed non-applicability of section 11B as the amount sought to be refunded is deposit and not the duty - HELD THAT:- The amount as was prayed to be refunded is admittedly an amount other than the duty or interest which is the subject matter of refund under Section 11 B. Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the Order-in-Appeal No. 262 (CRM)/CE/JPR/2019 dated 13.09.2019/ 24.09.2019. The relevant facts for the disposal are as follows:- 2. The applicant was engaged in manufacturing of "Galvanized Transmission & Communication Tower Parts". The appellant filed a refund claim amounting to ₹ 3,10,312/- before the Competent Authority on account of the said amount being shown as the closing balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hari, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Yashvir Singh, learned Departmental Representative for the respondent. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the amount in question is unutilized balance of PLA accumulated till 30 June, 2017 which has no meaning in GST Era with effect from 1st July, 2017. Because of no further relevance of the said amount, the withdrawal thereof was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mills reported in 1988 (37) ELT 478 (S.C.). Impressing upon the correctness of the decision, appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both the parties, I observe that the amount as was prayed to be refunded is admittedly an amount other than the duty or interest which is the subject matter of refund under Section 11 B. Keeping in view the same, to my opinion Section 11B should not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r must be adhered to. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge. However, apparently and admittedly the impugned amount of ₹ 3,10,312/- is not an amount of duty but a deposit by the appellant lying with the Department. In terms of principles of equity, the appellant is entitled for the refund thereof. However, this Tribunal being a quasi-judicial authority has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
