1998 (6) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....worked out Rs. 1,13,573.60 which was debited by the party vide PLA Entry No. 2, dated 6-4-1995. 3. The party themselves took the credit of Rs. 1,20,443.52 paid previously in their RG 23A Pt. II vide Entry No. 3, dated 26-12-1995 and was directed by Range Supdt. to reverse the said credit and amount of Rs. 1,20,443.52 got debited (under protest) vide RG 23 Pt. II Entry No. 129, dated 25-3-1996 for which the said refund claim filed by the party. 2. Original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of time as also on some complicated reason that the Modvat credit initially debited was against Chapter 35 and not against Chapter 40. 3. Lower appellate authority however, allowed the refund claim to the respondents herei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the refund is also barred by time inasmuch as the final assessment was made on 6-4-1995. The respondents herein took a suo motu credit of Rs. 1,20,443.52 on 26-12-1995, without filing any refund application. In other words, this suo motou credit was also taken after expiry of six months from the date of finalisation of provisional assessment. Consequently, the credit itself and hence, the refund involved now is barred by time because the limitation under Section 11B is six months from the date of payment of duty. 5. At this stage, Shri Manoj Verma, Field Officer of the respondent company has placed on record some written submissions from the respondent in which it is argued that question of limitation does not arise. It has been ....