2005 (12) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. [Order]. -  This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal C. Cus No. 616/2003, dated 31-10-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim as time bar. The appellants had furnished Bank Guarantee against advance license No. 0032871. The same was enforced in 18-7-2000. The claim was filed on 20-12-2001. Both the authorities have taken the view that the refund is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. CCE [2001 (127) E.L.T. 57 (T)] (iv)   Saheli Synthetics v. CC & CE [2001 (134) E.L.T. 738 (T)=2001 (99) ECR 47 (T)] (v)     Goodyear India v. CCE [2002 (150) E.L.T. 331 (T.)=2002 (104) ECR 630 (T)] (vi)   Pace Marketing Specialities v. CCE [2003 (157) E.L.T. 36 (T)] (vii)  Aeronautical Development Agency v. CC [2001 (133) E.L.T. 685 (T)] ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Counsel clearly applies to the facts of the present case. In the case of Lucas TVS Ltd. v. CC, Chennai (supra), the Bank Guarantee had been encashed by the Department and refund claim had been filed after six months. The Tribunal has taken a view, in the light of several judgments, that Section 27 of the Customs Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are not attracted. The facts and circu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore refund was required to have been made in the case without applicability of time bar. In the case of Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Revenue had encashed Bank Guarantee and rejected the refund claim on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal has followed the case-law noted in the Grasim Industries Ltd. and held that the Bank Guarantee is only a security and cannot be held as payment of duty....