Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Neptune Refrigeration Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Pondicherry on 12 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/330 -331/2007
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 19, 20/2007 (P) & 2,3/2007 (P) (D) dated 31.01.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
_______________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _______________________________________________________
1. M/s. Neptune Refrigeration Co. Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant
2. M/s. Bombay Ammonia (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
CCE, Pondicherry : Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Kannan, Adv., for the appellant Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondent CORAM Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Date of hearing : 12.08.09 Date of decision : 12.08.09 Final Order No.___________________ The appellants challenge the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), upholding the dismissal of the refund claim by the adjudicating authority, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
2. I have heard both sides and find that the submission of the assessees who are buyers of the goods in question on which duty was paid under protest by the manufacturer, that their claim is not hit by limitation, is not tenable, in view of the apex Court judgment in the case of CCE, Mumbai II Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the buyer is not entitled to claim refund of on account payment under protest by manufacturer without complying with Section 11B. Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE PRESIDENT BB 3