2026 (7) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : None Present for the Respondent : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised ORDER BINU TAMTA : 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order in appeal No. dated 11.10.2019, rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of limitation. 2. The appellant had filed a refund claim am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant for the period covered within the limitation. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant has shown the amount of Rs.6,68,168 as time barred and for the remaining amount of Rs.5,21,367, the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence and therefore, the refund of the entire amount of Rs.9,91,708 was rejected. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs.5,21,364 was within time, which he prayed to be refunded. We find that the authorities below have considered various challans amounting to Rs.19,31,913 and found that in the absence of any evidence the amount utilised for payment of service tax on non-taxable services cannot be ascertained. 4. Shri Rakesh Kumar learned AR has relied on the decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited....