9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order]. - This is an appeal against the Order in Appeal No. M-399/TH-74/85, dated 22-5-1985 allowing the appeal of the respondent. The amount involved in this case is Rs. 18,230.59. Since the Collector (A) has allowed the appeal of the respondents, the Revenue have come in appeal. Though in exercise of the discretion vested in me, for not entertaining the appeal where the amount involved is less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate in respect of refund claim filed under Rule 173L. Such a provision came to be prescribed by amendment of Section 11B, effected from 17-11-1980. Since the refund claim came to be filed on 24-11-1980, the Asstt. Collector has held that the amended provisions of Section 11B would be applicable and in that view held the refund claim as time barred. There is also another ground raised in the show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of documents, the appeal could not be gone on merits on this ground advanced by the Revenue. Since the account of re-processing in Form V account is not denied by the lower authorities, I have to confirm the finding on this fact in the absence of any evidence produced to the contrary. Now the only point, which is to be decided in this appeal is whether the refund claim is time barred. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod has already expired, a reasonable period is to be allowed. In this case, the date of re-entry of the goods is 2-4-1980, when there was no stipulation for filing refund claim within six months from the date of re-entry. This stipulation came into force only on 17-11-1980. A period of six months is allowed for reprocessing and to render accounts thereof under Rule 173L. The refund claim is repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
