2017 (3) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 09.04.2008 with direction to decide the refund claim afresh. In view of the observations, as contained in para-4 of the impugned order. 2. The brief facts are that for the period March/ 2006 to March, 2007 the assessee filed refund claim in respect of Excise duty on the ground that the said amount of duty was paid in excess on clearance of the goods. Pursuant to show-cause-notice, refund claim was rejected vide Order-in-Original No.81/Refund/RBL/2008 dated 09.04.2008, observing that the refund claim for the period prior to 29-08.2006 appeared to be time barred under Section 11B of the Act and no supporting documents supporting the ground of refund claim and other relevant documents appeared to have been submitted. On similar grounds, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 11.10.2006. Subsequently, provisional assessment is allowed with effect from 01.04.2007, after furnishing bond and bank guarantee, consequent to Order-in-appeal dated 21.01.2007, following the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Company Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, reported in 1991 (55) ELT-437, wherein it was held that the dealer cannot suffer mainly because of inaction of Department. 3.1 The Ld. Commissioner held that execution of bond is not mandatory since bond conditions could be altered and accordingly held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of provisions since March, 2006 and accordingly no part of their claim is hit by limitation. So far, the other issues are co....