2015 (9) TMI 1031

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....K. Shukla, Authorised Representative Per: H.K. Thakur These appeals have been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-241 to 245-13-14 dated 19.11.2013 and AHM-SVTX-000-APP-228-13-14 dated 06.11.2013. 2. Shri M.R. Shah (Tax Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant gave a detailed background of the appeals. It was his argument that the amount deposited with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and Venkat Associates vs. Asst. Commr. of S.T., Chennai-II [2010 (17) S.T.R. (mad.)] 3. Shri S.K. Shukla (AR) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that refund claims were filed after the prescribed time limit under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act 1944, and have been correctly rejected. Learned (AR) thus strongly defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was leviable. It is now well settled, as per the relied upon case laws, that duty paid but not statutorily leviable has to be considered as a deposit with the Govt. and time limit specified in Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will not be applicable. In the case of Natraj & Venkat Associates vs. Asst. Commr. of S.T., Chennai-II [2010 (17) S.T.R. (Mad.)] , Madras High Court, after relyin....