2011 (6) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s. I.J. Muthu Foods Pvt. Ltd., Ratnagiri. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i) M/s. I.J. Muthu Foods Pvt. Ltd., respondent in the present appeal is a 100% EOU. They paid an amount of Rs. 2,07,000/- towards cost recovery charges for the period from 01/01/2003 to 31/03/2004. As no service of a cost recovery officer was provided to them they filed a refund claim vide the claim dated 16/03/2009. A show-cause notice was issued to them vide notice dated 17/06/2009 asking them to show cause as to why the refund claim of Rs. 2,07,000/- should not be rejected under the provisions of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 11B(1) ibid as the same is hit by time limitation clause. The show-cause notice was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in the appeal memo is that even under the Limitation Act, 1963, the general limitation period is 3 years and, therefore, the refund claim is time barred, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as the claim has been filed after a lapse of 5 years from the date of payment of the charges. 4. The learned DR would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of MMTC Limited vs. Mukta Sons 2010 (257) ELT 408 wherein it was held that the period of limitation of 3 years should be computed from the date when the customs duty was paid as per Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and submits that the same logic would apply in the case of refund of duty also. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for t....