2020 (10) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Anil Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics, falling under Chapter 55 of the Firs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund application after almost 13 years from the date of reversal of the Cenvat credit in question. The matter was adjudicated against the appellant in denying the refund benefit, which was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 23.08.2018. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that since the Cenvat credit was reversed as per the instru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ings recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that since the appellant had filed the refund application under Section 11B of the Act and the same was considered and entertained by the statutory authorities under the relevant provisions of law, in absence of any ambiguity with regard to interpretation of the said statutory provisions, denial of the benefit of refund on the ground of limit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g of refund application is concerned, Section 11B ibid in clear and unambiguous term provides that the claim application should be filed within 1 year from the relevant date. The refund application filed by the appellant was considered by the original authority under Section 11B ibid and denied such benefit to the appellant on the ground of limitation. Since, the Central Excise statute clearly man....