2022 (1) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.04.2009, accordingly, the departments condition is that the refund claim was filed after one year from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals), hence, the same is time bar. 2. Shri. Vinay Kansara, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the amount paid by the appellant is clearly a pre-deposit, as per the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the same is not duty but it is pre-deposit, accordingly, the time limit prescribed under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable in the present case. He further submits that after passing an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellant the department challenged the orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He further submits that the appellant was supposed to file refund claim within one year from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order whereby the refund has arisen ,therefore, filing of refund claim after one year is time bar in terms of Section 11B. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the amount paid by the appellant is clearly a pre-deposit, as per the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.06.2008. In case of refund of pre-deposit the board in the Circular dated 02.01.2002 has clarified as under:- 'refund applications under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 need not be in....