2020 (2) TMI 1202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant. Ms. Tamana Alam, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ASHOK JINDAL :- The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected as barred by limitation in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant availed transportation services of transportation of rice and paid the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the case of Hitachi Metals (I) Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Gurgaon - I reported in 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 573 (Tri. - Chan.), wherein it was held that time limit prescribed under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable to the facts of this case. 4. On the other hand learned AR for Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as 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....