TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ran This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 277-2012 dated 12/09/2012. 2. None appeared for the respondent despite notice. 3. Since the appeal is of 2012, it is taken up for disposal in the absence of any representation for the respondents. 4. Heard the learned DR. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding refund of an amount of deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 25,00,000/-, debited by the respondent during the investigation proceedings. Respondent filed refund claim for the balance amount, which were rejected the same on the ground that it hit by limitation. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred, by the order impugned, the first appellate authority set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal holding the respondent i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of Tribunals on this grounds, to quote some: i) Maihar cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2004 (178) ELT 991] [Trib-Delhi] ii) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Birla Ericson Optical Ltd. [2007 (212) ELT 213] [Trib-Delhi] I find that Cenvat credit demand was determined finally on 16.02.2010 and appellant has timely filed his claim on 14.05.2010 i.e. within limitation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalties which has been imposed on the appellant on the confirmation of demand of Rs. 5,75,782. 9. In my considered view, both the grounds taken by the revenue in the grounds of appeal are non-starters and will not carry the case of the revenue any further and needs to be rejected. As it is seen from the records that appellant has successfully contested the demand of Rs. 5,75,782/- bef....