2003 (8) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... preferred by the appellants against the order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10-8-99 disallowing the refund amount of the bank guarantee of Rs. 42.50 lakhs. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On execution of a Bond in Form 13 along with bank guarantee for the above said amount, the assessment of the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund by holding the same to be time barred. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order. 3. We have heard both sides. On the bare perusal of the facts brought on record, it is quite evident that the bank guarantee for the amount in question was furnished by the appellants along with the Bond in Form 13 as their assessments were made provis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... security to the appellants in pursuance of the Tribunal's order could not be held to be barred by limitation. Even the provisions of Section 11B of the Act had not been held to be applicable to such a refund. In this context, reference be made to the ratio of law by the Tribunal in Grasim Industries v. CCE - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 57 and also to the Board's Circular F. No. 275/37/2K-CX. 8A, dated 2-1-2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X