2008 (10) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chhibber, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order].- The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of articles of Iron and Steel and had claimed SSI exemption for payment of concessional rate of duty. It has been alleged that the respondents collected excess amount in the guise of duty and it is hit by Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 194....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. DR reiterates the Grounds of Appeal. He submits that the order of the Adjudicating Authority is a refund order. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jumax Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 252 (Delhi). 3. Ld. Advocate reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts initially debited the amount from the Cenvat Account. Subsequently, they deposited the same amount in cash through TR-6 Challan in terms of the order of the Settlement Commission. It is contended by the Revenue that the respondents debited the duty in the Cenvat Account on 27-3-2001 and it is never claimed for a refund before expiry of one year, the claim is hit by limitation as time bar. I fin....