9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Act to hold the impugned refund as barred by time. The relevant date in terms of 11 B (ec) shall be the date of the final order which is 10 November, 2017. The application for refund in question has been filed on 9 July, 2018 as is apparent from the documents annexed with the written synopsis and has also been noted by Adjudicating Authority - the document submitted by the appellant which apparently bears the acknowledgment of receipt by the Department as well has to be considered as the date of application of refund which is 9 July, 2018. Seen from this angle, the application is held within one year from the date of Final decision in favour of the appellant. The cumulative finding of the entire discussion is that Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department vide Order of 21st March, 2017.However, this Tribunal vide the aforesaid Final Order has set aside the entire demand except for the demand of ₹ 252942.Consequent thereof that the impugned refund claim was filed for ₹ 7,77,058/- (1030000-252942). The said claim was proposed to be rejected vide Show Cause Notice No.2770 dated 24.09.2019 as being filed beyond the period of one year as mentioned in Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said proposal was confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 25.10.2019. The appeal thereof was rejected vide the Order under challenge. Being still aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Appellant 5. It is submitted that in March, 2014 itself the appellant got the knowledge that the duty liability out of the aforesaid deposited amount is confined to ₹ 7,77,058/- only. Hence, the refund claim should have been filed within one year of the said Show Cause Notice. However, it should have not been delayed beyond one year from the date of CESTAT Order dated 10.11.2017 in respect to the said SCN of 2014. But the refund application has been filed on 10th July, 2019 which is absolutely barred by time. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge . Appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the refund application was filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of one year if at all would have been applicable, it had to reckon from the relevant date and not from the date of deposit as has been submitted by learned D.R. The relevant date in terms of 11 B (ec) shall be the date of the final order which is 10 November, 2017. The application for refund in question has been filed on 9 July, 2018 as is apparent from the documents annexed with the written synopsis and has also been noted by Adjudicating Authority below in its order para No.3.2 thereof. Though some other application of 10 July, 2019 has been talked about by ld. D.R. but apparently and admittedly no such document has ever been produced on record. Accordingly, the document submitted by the appellant which apparently bears the acknow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
