2008 (11) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te, for the Appellant. Ms. M.I.J. Micheal, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The appellants are engaged in manufacturing of fertilizers. They also produce steam and electricity for captive consumption in Ammonia, Nitrate and Urea plant. The appellant submitted a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 32,50,443/- on 24-4-2003 for differential duty of Rs. 32....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riginal adjudicating authority found that refund claim of Rs. 32,50,443/- for the period from 15-11-95 to 28-2-2001, the amount of Rs. 25,84,183/- had already been confirmed and appropriated and the balance amount of claim of Rs. 6,66,260/- is relatable to period from 1-3-2000 to 28-2-2001, which was paid by the appellant voluntarily without any protest and hence was hit by limitation. The Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rted in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 474 (Tri.) and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court [1998 (101) E.L.T. A189 (S.C.)]. His submission is that since time limit is not applicable for demands under Section 11A, the same is not applicable for refund also. 3. We have considered the submissions. We find that in this case the goods were received on payment of duty and Chapter X procedure was not followed. Th....