2017 (7) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per : C J Mathew M/s Mazgon Docks Ltd is in appeal against the order no. M-I/AV/137/2011 dated 10^th March 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I which has upheld the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 69,21,00,612 by the original authority. 2. The appellant had filed this claim on 23rd April 2008 which pertains to procuremen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....barred by limitation of time and, accordingly, upheld the rejection. 3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for appellant and the Learned Authorised Representative. Both have argued extensively on merit as well as on procedural requirements. 4. It has been pointed out to us that the first appellate authority had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal and the show cause notice itself. The ori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the amount claimed was eligible for sanction. 5. The appeal before the first appellate authority was limited to the transfer of the sanctioned refund to the Fund. There was no appeal by Revenue against the implied findings of eligibility for sanction of refund. In the light of approval of the claim by the original authority, it is inconceivable that the first appellate authority had suffic....