Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Dena Snuff in -Ltu Mumbai vs Asian Paints Ltd on 11 April, 2023Matching Fragments
3.19 that in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21.10.2015, the adjudicating authority has relied upon the finding given by the Tribunal in the remanding Final order dated 16.1.2015 & held that once the issue has reached finality, duty paid cannot be considered as under protest & therefore, time limit of one 25 E/86570/2017,86002/2019,86137/2020,85290/2021 year as provided in law will be applicable in such cases. The adjudicating authority held that since the provisional assessment with respect to third period has attained finality by the Order-in- Appeal dated 7.1.2002, hence, refund claim filed for the same on 14.11.2006 is time barred. The adjudicating authority has also placed reliance on decision of Dena Snuff (Petitioner) Ltd. Vs. CCE-2003 (157) ELT 500 (SC).
3.20 that in view of the detailed submission above, they have correctly filed the refund claim subsequent to the Hon'ble High Court order dated 21.2.2006. Therefore, aforesaid finding of the adjudicating authority is incorrect & perverse.
3.21 that reliance placed on the aforesaid decision of the adjudicating authority is also incorrect. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dena Snuff supra is in fact in favour of theirs. In this case,
(i) the assessee classified its product under Sub-
(v) The appeal filed by the department in assessee's own case was dismissed by the tribunal reported as CCE Vs Dena Snuff Pvt Ltd [2000 (115) ELT 642 (T)] relying on the decision of Lachman Das Bihari Lal's case. The department filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide Common Order dated 28.8.2003 reported as CCE Vs. Lachman Daas Behari Lal [2004 (163) ELT A115 (SC)] dismissed the appeals of the department filed in Lachman Daas Behari Lal's case and assessee's case. Thus, the legal position that the assessee's product is classifiable under Sub- Heading 2404.60 attained finality by the Supreme Court's order reported as 2004 (163) ELT A115 (SC) supra.
(viii) It may be noted that the date of mentioned in para 3 of the Supreme Court's decision reported as Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE 2003 (157) ELT 500 (SC) is 28.8.2003, i.e., the Order date of CCE Vs. Lachman Daas Behari Lal 2004 (163) ELT AI 15 (SC), instead of 28.8.1990 mentioned therein.
As can be seen from the above, the decision of the Supreme Court in Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2003 (157) ELY-500 (SC) 28 E/86570/2017,86002/2019,86137/2020,85290/2021 supports the submission of theirs in the present case that the period of limitation of one year is to be reckoned from the decision. of the Hon'ble High Court dated 21.2.2006. Therefore, the said decision is in fact in favour of the appellants. Hence, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21.10.2015 is liable to be set aside.