2014 (10) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT This is a ROM application filed by the appellant. The main ground of the appellant is that the following case laws were not taken into consideration while passing the order.     (i) Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III (Order No. A/31-39/14/CSTB/C-I dated 18.12.2013.     (ii) Deepak Spinners Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2014 (302) ELT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation is required to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions while I agree with the learned AR that all the judgments quoted by the advocate for the appellant were taken into consideration. It was not considered necessary to discuss each and every judgment for sake of brevity and only the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Courts were discussed and the order was based upon the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Notification 11/2005- but refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. In fact the said Notification 5/2006 itself prescribes time limit as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. In view of the said position, the facts of Vodafone Cellular case are entirely different from the present case. Moreover, in the said judgment, t....