9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eventive Wing of the Central Excise Commissionerate conducted investigation wherein it was revealed that the appellant was manufacturing and clearing ingots bearing name/marking of another person/unit without payment of Excise Duty. (ii) The goods manufactured by the appellant bore the markings "R K I" belonging to another company namely, M/s. R.K. Metals Industry. (iii) For the above reason, SSI exemption availed by the appellant was sought to be denied vide Show Cause Notice No. 75/2006 dated 03.10.2006. (iv) It is not in dispute that during investigation, the appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (vide challan dated 14.08.2006 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, another challan dated 05.09.2006 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and another challan dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test and as such, the same was not hit by the mischief of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with regard to the time limitation when a refund of the same is claimed. 5.2 In support of his case, Learned Advocate for the appellant would also rely on the following decisions: (i) M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)]; (ii) Commr. of Central Excise v. M/s. Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. [2018 (11) G.S.T.L. 341 (All.)]; (iii) The Commr. of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. M/s. Pricol Ltd. [2015 (320) E.L.T. 703 (Mad.)]; (iv) M/s. EBIZ.COM Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Customs & S.T. [2017 (49) S.T.R. 389 (All.)]; (v) Commr. of C.Ex., Chennai-II v. M/s. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. [2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 7. After considering the rival contentions, the undisputed fact that remains is that the refund is claimed as a consequence of CESTAT's Final Order No. 41775 of 2017 dated 21.08.2017 and hence, it is not a normal refund claim. The legislature in its wisdom has inserted (ec) under Explanation (B) to Section 11B with effect from 11.05.2007 with a purpose, thereby carving out an exception from a normal refund claim. This according to me is in the nature of a special provision and hence, any claims made as a consequence of Appellate Order/(s) will have to pass through the rigours of (ec) ibid. When a specific provision is available in the statute covering the specific cases, it is the duty to examine whether a claim falls under such spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
