TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peared that the appellant was also availing exemption for clearances made under the brand name CRI AKASH. It appeared to the department that CRI-AKASH also belongs to the appellant and that they have crossed the exemption limit and hence they are required to discharge differential Central Excise duty liability. During the course of investigation the appellants had paid an amount of Rs. 1,94,836/- for the period 2001-02 and 2002-03. The appellants then subsequently filed a refund claim on 07.05.2004. The refund claim was however returned to the appellant vide a letter dated 25.06.2004 as "premature". The appellants resubmitted the refund claim on 21.08.2007, which was however rejected by the original authority, on the grounds that it had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004, which is very much a decision in respect of the claim submitted by them. However, the appellant did not file an appeal against the said letter and hence they cannot now come up with the plea that the refund claim was filed in time. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. Any person seeking refund under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act has to do so within a period of one year from the relevant date. The relevant date has been defined in Explanation B to the Section. In the normal course as indicated in Explanation B, (f); the date of payment of duty has to be taken as the relevant date. Thus any person who feels that he has justifiable claim for refund in respect of any excess duty that may have been paid can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat credit on Grinding Media has not been accepted by the Department and the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. With regard to the issue, as to whether, Grinding Media should be considered as input for manufacture of cement, the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Department were dropped by the Joint Commissioner vide order dated 13-5-2009. Consequent upon the favourable order, the appellant pursued the matter with the Department for sanction of refund. Since, the request was not considered favourably, the appellant has filed the refund application once again on 19-10-2011. The authorities below took the view that since the order was passed on 13-5-2009 and the refund application was filed on 19-10-2011, the same is barr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner had submitted the rebate claim on 5-11-2007, along with the relevant documents. The second respondent had returned the enclosures submitted by the petitioner, along with the rebate claim application, vide letter, dated 20-2-2008. However, the second respondent had retained the application for rebate of duty, in Form C. It is also noted that the final confirmation of the date of shipment had been made only on 23-12-2008. In view of the fact that the rebate claim scheme has been introduced as a beneficial scheme to encourage exports it has to be construed in a liberal manner. As such, the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation should be taken as 5-11-2007, when the petitioner had submitted the rebate claim application....