9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CEGAT Final Order No. 700/98-A, dated 4-5-1998 in which the demand of Rs. 30,621.60 was set aside. The second proceedings were settled by CEGAT Final Order No. A/223/98-NB, dated 15-4-1998 in which the demand of Rs. 24,718.88 was set aside but the demand of Rs. 31,587.34 was confirmed. The CEGAT also set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. 3.In pursuance of the above Orders of CEGAT, the appellants filed refund claims of Rs. 30,621.60 on 3-6-1998 and another claim of Rs. 26,718.88 on 12-5-1998. 4.The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 20-7-1998 and 30-6-1998 in two cases calling upon them to show cause why the relevant claims made by them should not be rejected as time barred under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, JDR for the respondents. The ld. Advocate for the appellants apart from relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mafatlal (supra) further placed reliance in the Tribunal decision in M/s. General Engineering Works v. CCE, Jaipur - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 86 (T). Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR reiterated the findings of the lower appellate authority. 8.I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is observed that Commissioner (Appeals) has stated in his order that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries specially paras 83 and 107 make it clear that duty deposited by the party by pursuing the appellate remedy can itself not be considered as duty paid under protest. The ld. lower appellate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled an appeal. The matter went up to the Tribunal and the appeal of the party was allowed. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal the party filed refund claim which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the claim was not lodged within six months as stipulated under Section 11B. In this decision the Tribunal upheld the submissions of the appellants that since the matter was pending before the appellate forum and in pursuance of that order the party had filed refund claim, hence time limit under Section 11B is not applicable. 10.In view of the above, the order passed by the lower appellate authority is not sustainable and the same is set aside. In this context it would not be out of place to observe that originally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
