2017 (7) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2009 requiring them to pay the said amount which was held to be an erroneous suo moto re-credit by the appellant. The original authority had rejected the refund claim, the protest letter of March 2008 notwithstanding, on the ground that claim for refund had not been filed within the stipulated period prescribed in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In effect, the appellant had sought restoration of credit that was claimed to have been deprived without authority of law for which the Central Excise authorities had, apparently, insisted upon recourse to this circuitous route. The chronology of events is interesting enough for recapitulation here. 2. Appellant had supplied customised electrical equipment to M/s Moser Baer India Ltd, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eedings is not on record here; nor is it of any material relevance. 4. However, it needs noting that the factum of that challenge to the interest and penalty has been seized upon by the first appellate authority to render the finding that the appellant had no grievance against the demand and, consequently, the refund claim was not related to the duty paid in consequence of the order confirming the demand. 5. Heard Learned Authorized Representative. None appeared for appellant. 6. In this welter of reversals and re-credits, the core of the issue appears to have been obfuscated. Doubtlessly, this appeal challenges the upholding of the rejection of the claim for refund of Rs. 2,90,858 sought by the appellant. The claim was filed on th....