9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L) None for the appellant Shri Gopi Raman, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellant /assessee on the ground that the refund amount has not been calculated properly and has been granted less amount of refund, calculated by the Revenue. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of tower material. They were also engaged in trading of goods and also providing taxable services upto 30.06.2012. Trading was defined as exempt service w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Pursuant to audit for the period October, 2011 to June, 2013, objection was raised that as the appellant is not maintaining separate accounts, they were required to reverse an amount calculated @6% on the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide order-in-original dated 22.04.2016. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order-in-appeal observed as under :- 2.2 Aggrieved with the Order-in-Original, they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur, vide Order-in-Appeal No.37(SJ)CE/JPR/2018 dated 02.02.2018 decided the appeal as under:- that the appellant was liable to pay proportionate credit involved on input services used in exempted service during the period from October 2011 to June, 2013 along with interest and thus amount reversed over and above the proportionate credit is to be refunded to them. The cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that refund has been rightly granted and the appellant cannot include the amount refundable for the period 1st July, 2012 to 30.06.2013 because the same has become time barred under the provisions of Section 11 (B) of the Central Excise Act. 9. Heard the ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue in details and perused the appeal records and also the written submissions by the appellant /assesseee. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the appellant has attempted to increase their refund claim pursuant to remand in the first round by the Commissioner (Appeals) in February, 2019. I hold that the claim had become time barred for the period 1.7.2012 to 30.06.2013, as has been held by the Commissioner (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
