https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218589 The appellant, a 100% EOU, was entitled to duty-free procurement under Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. The High Court held the suspension of this facility as without jurisdiction. The appellant filed a refund claim within the limitation period, which was initially denied due to a discrepancy in filing dates. However, the Tribunal found the claim timely and upheld the appellant's protest letter as valid, leading to the restoration of the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority's order was restored in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218589 The appellant, a 100% EOU, was entitled to duty-free procurement under Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. The High Court held the suspension of this facility as without jurisdiction. The appellant filed a refund claim within the limitation period, which was initially denied due to a discrepancy in filing dates. However, the Tribunal found the claim timely and upheld the appellant's protest letter as valid, leading to the restoration of the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority's order was restored in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218589