2017 (1) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent Order The fact of the case is that during the investigation of the demand case, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 16 lacs on 19-3-2001 and 24-3-2001 therefore refund claim was filed on 9-2-2002 of the same amount under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The refund was returned by the department on 3-5-2002 on the ground that matter is under investigation and not yet fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ating the show cause notice vide order dated 27-10-2005 rejected the refund claim being time bar on the basis that refund claim was filed on 29-7-2005 whereas amount was paid in March, 2001 therefore refund is time bar. Being aggrieved by the rejection order of the Asstt. Commissioner, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was rejected on the ground that since demand matter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isdiction. 3. Shri. S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. I find that in the show cause notice as well as in the adjudication order the only ground for rejection of appeal is limitation. On perusal of records, I find that refund was admit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is not reasonable. Since the refund was rejected on time bar only, it appears that sanctioning authority has not examined the refund on merit as well as unjust enrichment, it was also not brought on record that what is the status of demand case. The sanctioning authority should also decide the refund claim taking into consideration the status of demand case. ....