2018 (2) TMI 1235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i, A.R. - for the Respondent-Revenue ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. This Appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-605/14-15 dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Vadodara. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 33,97,043/- by debiting their cenvat credit account on 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as for the Appellant submits that the said amount was paid while pursuing renewal of their UT-1, undertaking so as to continue the facility of export of the goods. It is his contention that since the amount was paid for want of proof of export, therefore, it should be treated as deposit and not duty. Accordingly, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 is not applica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been filed after one year from the date of payment of duty, therefore, the refund claim is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. Further referring to the letter intimating the payment of duty and also refund application, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that in the said letter or refund application, no where it is mentioned that the amount was paid under protes....