INDIAN LPG CYLINDERS Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN sum and substance, the order, sought to be impugned through the instant Appeal, is the one rendered by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dated 12 -4 -2005, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal, seeking refund of excise duty, allegedly deposited provisionally, was dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same was declined on account of the fact that the claim had been made by the appellant beyond the period stipulated therefor.

(2.) IN view of the above, the solitary question that arises for our determination is, whether the appellant had really deposited excise duty provisionally, and, in case the answer to the aforesaid is in the affirmative, whether the aforesaid refund claimed by the appellant was within the period of time stipulated there for under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "1944 Act"). Section 11B of the 1944 Act is being extracted here -under for the facility of reference:

(3.) DURING the course of hearing of the instant appeal, it was not a matter of dispute between the learned Counsel for the rival parties that the answer to the issue, whether the excise duty was paid provisionally or not, would emerge from the interpretation of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "1944 Rules"). It is, therefore, that Rule 9B, aforementioned, is being extracted hereunder: