2008 (12) TMI 545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R, for the Appellant. Shri Gopal Krishna Mundhra, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The Revenue is in appeal before us against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the rejection of refund claim for Rs. 21,89,834/. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the time limit provided under Section 11B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 9B, will not have retrospective effect. 2. Heard both sides. The ld. DR submits that refund claim in this case was filed on 24-1-2001 i.e. after amendment of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was amended by Notification No. 45/99 dated 25-6-99. He also pointed out that the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TVS Suzuki Ltd. is not appli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... upon several decisions. In the case under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TVS Suzuki Ltd., refund claim was made on 5-7-1996 i.e. prior to the date on which proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 came into force. However, we find that in this case assessment was finalized on 11-1-99, but the refund claim was filed in 2001. Therefore, TVS Suzuki Ltd. cas....