2008 (11) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... andra Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)].- This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 139/2008-C.E., dated 30-6-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. The issue is very simple. The appellants pre-deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- ordered by the Commissioner (A). However, in the appeal before the Commissioner (A), an order was passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the decision rendered in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Ram Nath Ram Kumar - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 584 (Tribunal) wherein it is held that "refund claim - Time limit provided under the statute to apply - Appellate Tribunal not competent to apply general law of limitation." 3.1 In view of the above decision, it was urged that the lower authority could not have applied the general law of limitation to rejec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w married to justice, is ubi jus ibi remedium. 3.2 Further following case-laws were relied on to hold that the time limit under Section 11B will not be applicable to refund of pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. (i) Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chem. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Konark Cylinders v. CCE, BBSR - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 454 (T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X