TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d: (1) Whether the period of six months under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable when the claim of refund is made as a consequence of the order of the Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) holding that the Raw Naphtha used for generation of power and steam, which directly or indirectly is made for the production of final product is entitled for exemption from Excise Duty? (2) Whether the applicant having deposited the Central Excise Duty, under protest, as is clear from the challan and the letter given to the Central Excise authorities of Bareily, the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to grant the refund on the ground of limitation of six months? (3) Whether the Tribunal having not given any findings on the applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter was remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 22-1-1999. It further appears that for the period 8th February, 1998 to 11th May, 1998, the applicant had filed refund claim under Section 1 of the Act for Rs. 24,28,233.00, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Division-IV, Vadodara vide its order dated 16-6-2002, on the ground that the application filed on 20-10-1999 was beyond the period of six months, therefore, barred by limitation. being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 15-12-2002, rejected the appeal. It also appears that the applicant had moved miscellaneous application with the request to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fresh decision in the light of the Tribunal's final order no. S/91-92/98 dated 7-8-1998 passed in the case of Tata Chemical Ltd. That order did not give any right to the applicant to claim refund of the duty. Moreover, learned counsel has contended that the present refund claim which had been dismissed through the impugned order by the Tribunal, did not relate to the period involved in the order dated 22-1-1999 of the Tribunal but related to the subsequent current period. Therefore, that order had no bearing on the merits of the case. On these facts the Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent on the face of record, which requires rectification. 3. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pyush Agarwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98 to 11-5-1998 and the Tribunal has recorded categorical findings in its order dated 13th September, 2002. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order of Tribunal dated 13th September, 2002 and order dated 15th February, 2002. We are of the view that the questions no. 1, 2 and 4 do not arise from the order of Tribunal dated 13-9-2002, it relates to the merit of the case, which has been adjudicated by the Tribunal in its order dated 15-2-2002. In the order dated 13-9-2002, the Tribunal has only considered the application for rectification of mistake. The question for consideration before the Tribunal was whether there was any mistake apparent on the face of record in the order dated 15-2-2002, which requir....