2018 (8) TMI 1524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent : Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. ( Oral ) 1. The following question of law arose for consideration of this court: "Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that only part of the amount claimed by the assessee was refundable and that the other part could not be repaid on account of expiry of limitation under Section 11(B) of the Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner refunded part of the amount but disallowed refund of ` 11,49,090/- on the ground that the application was filed after a lapse of period of one year. The Assessee unsuccessfully filed an appeal to CESTAT which appears to have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.). 5. Counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d there-under. 7. This court is of the opinion that the CESTAT clearly fell into error. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. (supra) was a case where principal duty was payable; excess amount had been paid on a mistaken notion with respect to the liability for excess production under a notification which was later discovered to be not correct. In the present case, levy never applied - a fact conceded by no....