2018 (5) TMI 1805 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund of duty paid – export of goods – rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation – Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that:- The First Appellate Authority should be give an opportunity to reconsider the issue afresh. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal No. E/31214/2017 – A/30583/2018 – Dated:- 9-5-2018 – Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri N Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran Th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
them on the ground that initially they had debited the amount from CENVAT account. Both the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim only on the ground that it is hit by limitation as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Learned Counsel brings to my notice in an identical issue, the First Appellate Authority by Order-in-Appeal dated 28.03.2018 had taken a diagonally opposite view and allowed the refund claim filed by the appellant. On perusal of the impugned order in appeal (dated 25.09.2017) and the order produced by the Learned Counsel dated 28.03.2018 I do find it so. 5. In my view, the First Appellate Authority should be give an opportunity to reconsider the issue afresh. Accordingly, impugned o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =