9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im has been filed post this dismissal of Revenue s appeal, on 24.11.2017. So seen from the angle of time bar issue as invoked by the Department, it is held that the period of one year as per section 11B (B) (ec) is the date of decision of Rajasthan High Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX-I, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN VERSUS RAJDHANI CRAFTS [ 2017 (9) TMI 1942 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and not the date of decision of Final Order of CESTAT, the appeal before High Court of Rajasthan being the one filed by the Department. Hence, the findings of authority below are absolutely wrong. Otherwise also, the another apparent fact is that the order dated 30.06.2014 of adjusting the paid amount towards the sanctioned demand was passed during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000/- were deposited by the appellant towards the amount of pre-deposit on 05.04.2007. However, the appeal was rejected vide Order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30th April, 2007. Even the application praying for remission of duty on the goods lost in the fire accident which occurred in the factory premises of the appellant on 13.12.2005 was also disallowed vide Order-in-Original No.13/2007 dated 09.05.2007. The said order was finally set aside by Delhi CESTAT vide Final Order dated 10 May 2016. 2. However, during the pendency of the said appeal before CESTAT which later was decided on 10.05.2016, the appellant filed a refund claim dated 24.11.2017 for the payments on the exports made during April 2013 to June, 2013 and during Janua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant appeal relates to the limitation of filing the refund claim as a consequence of judgment or order of appellate authority, Tribunal or any Court where the duty was coercively recovered by adjustment of refund. It is impressed upon that such payment may be treated as the payment under protest . Learned Counsel has laid emphasis upon the order passed by this Tribunal in similar circumstances in the case of Ahlcon Parentals (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Alwar, the final order No. 50097/2020 dated 10th January, 2020. It is submitted that since the payment was under protest, section 11B has wrongly been invoked to hold the refund as being barred by time. The order accordingly, is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the authorities below. But both these decisions were challenged before this Tribunal and vide Final Order No.51816-51817/2016 dated 10th May, 2016. The demand of duty was set aside and remission of duty on goods lost in fire was also allowed. 9. Prior to this order was filed, the request for refund of ₹ 2,82,501/- + ₹ 99,388/- on exports made during April 2013 to June 2013 and January, 2013 to March, 2013 respectively, was filed by the appellant. The refund was sanctioned but was ordered to be adjusted towards the confirmed demand. Since subsequently, this Tribunal vide Order of 10.05.2016 has set aside the demand against which the aforesaid refund was ordered to be adjusted. Definitely, the appellant became entitled to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
