9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of refund on the ground that the same were filed after expiry of one year, i.e. time limit prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision of M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs CCE & ST - Belgaum [2019 (2) TMI 1378 - CESTAT BANGALORE] in which the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in GTN Engineering Industries [2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 to September 2014 and the other one bearing appeal No. E/10803/2017, the period involved being from October 2014 to December 2012 and the amount of refund involved is Rs. 9,82,083/. Appellant had filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 for refund of utilization Cenvat Credit on account of clearance to 100% EOU with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d representative, on the other side, seeks to rely upon the order of Hon'ble Madras High as reported in 2012 (28) STR 426 (Madras) in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. wherein it was held that the one year period under Section 11B is to be determined by applying Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the limitation within Rule 5 has to be subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (cited supra) considered and relied upon the decision of M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports (supra) and decided the matter in favour of the party. 5. This court has considered the adversarial arguments. In view of the stated position and the case of GTN Engineering, having been distinguished the party becomes entitled to the refund on the basis of cited decisions of Tribunal. Same is therefore, all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
