9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX BANGALORE I [ 2020 (5) TMI 225 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] this Court has held that the application for claiming refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit should be within the limitation or time prescribed under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has been further held that the time limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining whether the claim is filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11-B or otherwise. In the instant case, for the financial year 2006-07, which ends on 31.03.2007, the application has been filed on 31.03.2008 - In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication for refund of Rs.15,93,863/- to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru. It was rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 19.08.2011 on the ground that the claim was beyond the period of limitation. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide order dated 19.11.2012 allowed appeal No.379/2012 and remitted the matter to the adjudicating Authority to re-consider the refund claim. 3. The Revenue challenged the said order before the CESTAT, Bengaluru. By its order dated 13.04.2018, the CESTAT, Bengaluru set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the original Authority to pass de novo orders. Hence, this appeal. 4. Shri M.S.Nagaraja, learned counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11-B or otherwise. 8. In the instant case, for the financial year 2006-07, which ends on 31.03.2007, the application has been filed on 31.03.2008. Although it is contended by Shri Jeevan J Neeralgi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the application was filed in the Customs office on 17.12.2009, it is admitted in para 4(a) of statement of facts filed by the Revenue before CESTAT that the refund application was initially filed with the Service Tax Department on 31.03.2008 who had informed that the claimant should approach the Customs Range Officer and accordingly, the refund application was filed before the Customs Authority. That was also not accepted on the ground that the application ought to have been filed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
