2015 (10) TMI 1323 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - The contention of the learned AR is not acceptable in the light of report submitted by the Range officer dated 22-9-2010 confirming that refund claim has been filed within time. Therefore, the submissions of learned AR that rebate claim is not bearing the name of the officer receiving the rebate claim and has not put any stamp is not acceptable. I further observed that lot of correspondence has been exchanged. I have seen in the past 6 years and in almost every document received by the departmental officer has no name and is unstamped. Therefore, the contention of the learned AR is not factual. Moreover the fact is on record that they have filed rebate claim which has been confirmed by the Range Superintendent. Therefore, I hold that rebate claim was filed within time and impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim rejection based on time-barred filing as per Notification No. 41/2007.
2. Confirmation of timely filing of rebate claim by the appellant.
3. Discrepancy regarding name and stamp on the rebate claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of their rebate claim, contending that it was filed within the prescribed time limit as per Notification No. 41/2007. The appellant, an exporter of goods, filed the rebate claim for services availed during the period January to March 2008. However, the claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant challenged this decision.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the rebate claim was indeed filed within the stipulated time frame. They provided evidence in the form of a report from the concerned authorities dated 28-9-2010, confirming the timely submission of the rebate claim by the exporter. The counsel asserted that this crucial information was overlooked by the adjudicating authority, warranting the setting aside of the impugned order.

3. On the contrary, the respondent's representative supported the initial decision, highlighting the absence of a name and stamp on the late-filed rebate claim as a reason for non-acceptance. However, the appellate tribunal found this argument unconvincing. The tribunal referred to a report from the Range officer dated 22-9-2010, which verified the timely filing of the refund claim. The tribunal further noted a common practice within the department where documents often lacked proper identification details. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deeming the rebate claim as filed within the prescribed time limit. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellant.