2021 (12) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese Perumpallikuttiyil for appellant and learned Standing Counsel Mr P R Sreejith for respondents. 2. M/s. Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Limited/appellant being aggrieved by the Final Order No.20778/2017 dated 25.05.2017 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore in Appeal No.E/21827/2015-E has filed the instant appeal. The Commissioner of Central Excise Ernakulam is the respondent. 3. The dispute in the subject Central Excise Appeal relates to the rejection of claim of the appellant for refund of a sum of Rs. 18,19,717/- made on 09.02.2012. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the appeal are in a very narrow compass and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant aggrieved by the said decision filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal through its Final Order impugned in the appeal, marked as Annexure-16, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the second appeal under Section 35G of the Act. 3.2 The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: "(A) In the facts and circumstances of the case what is the relevant date for counting the period of limitation for filing refund claim - whether it is the date on which the final price was communicated by KSEB to the appellant or the different dates on which duties were paid under provisional prices? (B) Whether the fact that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udgment dated 06.08.2010 in CEA 85/2006; Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Oriental Explosives (P) Ltd, 2008 (222) ELT 205 (Bom.); Keltch Engergies Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, 2006 (196) ELT 282 (Tri.Bang.); and MRF Ltd. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1997 KHC 3605, to convince the Court that the starting point depends upon the circumstances of each case and as long as the supply has been made under an ongoing contract, the starting point shall not be the date on which the payment of duty has been made by the appellant. 5. Mr P R Sreejith invites our attention to the findings recorded both by the Tribunal and the primary authority, and argues that Section 11B deals with refund of excise duty and/or int....