Bombay High CourtCEL/9/2016dismissedrule discharged

Nathu Gangadhar Rambhad v. The Deputy Commissioner, Dept. Of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Nagpur

2020-01-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravi K. Deshpande,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar1 pages

CEL9-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 9/2016 (NATHU GANGADHAR RAMBHAD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.D. Khamborkar, counsel for appellant.

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 13 , 2020 .

The appellant is barred from claiming the refund of the excise duty paid under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if it is not claimed within a period of one year. If the refund is claimed beyond the period of one year, it has to be shown under the second proviso that the duty was paid under protest. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out to us that the appellant was entitled to such refund.

Hence, the Central Excise Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) (R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) APTE