2009 (12) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... terms of price variation clause, the rate of raw materials should be the rate prevalent during the month just preceding the month of inspection by the Railways. Terming that they have erroneously calculated the price variation bills by adopting the rate of RINL/Bangalore for spring steel for the month of April, 2005 and May, 2005 and paid excess duty, the appellants claimed vide their letter dated 13-11-2006/22-1-2007 a refund of Rs. 2,28,000/- Central Excise duty. A show cause notice bearing No. V/73/18/3/2007-Refunds dated 20-4-2007 was issued to the appellants requiring them to show cause as to why the refund claim for Refund of Rs. 2,28,009/- should not be rejected as the claim is barred by limitation of time in terms of Section 11B of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner (Appeals) 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue to be determined in this case is whether the refund is time-barred in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant pleaded that there is existence of price variation clause in the agreement with railways and due to that assessments have to be treated as provisional and limitation as envisaged under Section 11B would not be applicable. 7. We find that for the purpose of assessing the goods provisionally there were provisions of Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2004. It is on record that the assessee/appellant had not sought for provisional assessment of the goods under Rule 7. If that be so, be....