2008 (11) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri V. Poorna Chandra Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)].- This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 139/2008-C.E., dated 30-6-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. The issue is very simple. The appellants pre-deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- ordered by the Commissioner (A). However, in the appeal before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lying the law of limitation as in terms of the decision rendered in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Ram Nath Ram Kumar - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 584 (Tribunal) wherein it is held that "refund claim - Time limit provided under the statute to apply - Appellate Tribunal not competent to apply general law of limitation." 3.1 In view of the above decision, it was urged that the lower authority could not have ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rnative remedy' since the root principle of law married to justice, is ubi jus ibi remedium. 3.2 Further following case-laws were relied on to hold that the time limit under Section 11B will not be applicable to refund of pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. (i) Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chem. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Kona....