2019 (2) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AL) Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant(s). Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent(s). ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 34/2010 (H-II) S. Tax dated 12.04.2010. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details are appellants are rendering services of infrastruct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h an order, appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority who concurred with the views of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal on the ground that refund claim was preferred beyond the period as provided under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the impugned order as also the adjudication order and submits that the said ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Tourbo Limited [2015 (39) STR 913]. It is his submission that the ratio of these decisions would apply in this case in hand. The Lower Authorities were in error while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. 4. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the refund claims were filed in Form - R which is prescribed under the Central Excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustoms Act, 1962 for limitation cannot be ignored. 5. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides and on perusal of impugned order, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding refund of the amount which has been claimed by the appellant before the lower authorities. We find that both the lower authorities have not considered the various case laws as mentioned by the....