9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad to reckon. The applications of 19.04.2017 is very much within the said time limit. Hence, the finding of holding the application delayed by 10 years is absolutely beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice and wrong as well. The time bar of section 11B cannot be invoked in this case as Section 11 B is applicable to the amount of duty or interest or such similar charges. The amount in question is neither of these liabilities as against the present appellant. It was the demand confirmed against the predecessor of the appellant from whom the appellant has acquired his property. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the refund of later amount has already been sanctioned, there appears no justification for rejecting the impugned amount of ₹ 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime limit as prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA). The said proposal was initially confirmed vide Order-in- Original No.222 dated 05.10.2017 and the appeal thereof has been rejecte4d vide the Order-under-challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Parth Mullick, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of CEA to the impugned refund as the impugned refund was neither duty nor any such charge as was recoverable from the appellant. Learned Counsel has laid emphasis upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Lila Ram Hukum Chand reported in 1978 (2) ELT (J 259) (Collr. Appl.) 3. Balakrishna Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I reported in 2015 (317) ELT 737 (Tri.-Del.) 4. CCE, Mumbai-VII vs. Fibre Foils Ltd. reported in 2000 (122) ELT 640 (Tribunal) 5. Balakrishna Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I reported in 2014 (304) ELT 281 (Tri.-Del.) 6. Ashok Shety Associates C.A. vs. CCE, Mangalore reported in 2017 (4) GSTL 53 (Tri.-Bang.) To impress upon that with respect to the amount in question, the bar of limitation of Section 11B is not applicable. Order is accordingly prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these arguments, learned D.R. has impressed upon that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lakhs upon M/s. Regency Industries Ltd. and penalty of ₹ 3 Lakhs upon the Director of M/s. Regency Industries. This proposal was confirmed vide Order-in Original No.65/94 dated 08.04.1994. This amount was standing due till 07.04.2004 when the present appellant acquired the assets of M/s. Regency Industries from RIICO. Post this Conveyance RIICO pressurized the appellant to clear the outstanding dues against M/s. Regency Industries. Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 20,95,957/- and ₹ 3.5 Lakhs were deposited by the appellant on 04.10.2005. The remaining amount of ₹ 3.5 Lakhs out of the penalty amount of ₹ 7 Lakhs was paid on 30th March, 2006. Later the appellant filed the refund claim of the said total amount i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 That the refund claim has been filed after a delay of 10 years, whereas the time limit for filing such claim is one year as per Section 11B of CEA. 2 That the refund claim was not filed alongwith the earlier claim for ₹ 2795957/-. 6. From the above discussion of facts, it is abundantly clear that the amount as has been claimed vide the impugned refund application was deposited after the initial application seeking refund claim of ₹ 27,95,957/- was filed. Hence, there was no possibility to include this amount in the previous application. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider this particular fact. Hence, the rejection on the second ground as mentioned above is not sustainable. 7. Coming to the applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Section 11B in such circumstances has wrongly been invoked by the adjudicating authority below. The issue is otherwise no more res-entegra as is apparent from several decisions relied upon by the appellant. I draw my support from the decision titled as CCE, Mumbai-VII vs. Fibre Foils Ltd. reported in 2000 (122) ELT 640 (Tribunal). The said decision has formed the basis of the decisions relied upon by the appellant. Above all, the impugned refund claim is about the amount as similar as was confirmed against M/s. Regency Industries Ltd. i.e. ₹ 27,95,957/- which includes part of penalty imposed. Since the refund of said later amount has already been sanctioned, there appears no justification for rejecting the impugned amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
