9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. L. Mehar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Arya Export and Industries, the issue involved is whether the two refund claims of the Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported out of India is within the time-limits specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 2. Shri M. Chander Sekharan, learned Sr. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said letter they had clearly mentioned that they had reversed the Modvat credit on misapprehension on the legal position and requested for the refund of the amount as they were not clearing any goods for home consumption; that in the said letter they had also mentioned that an amount of Rs. 3,57,185/- was lying unutilised as the goods manufactured out of the inputs have been exported and they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat "the refund claim is not deniable on the ground of time-bar when the assessee's letter giving details of payment is submitted along with RT-12 Returns." Finally, he relied upon the decision in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C. & C.Ex, Hyderabad, 2000 (117) E.L.T. 648, wherein it was held that "claim for refund is not rejectable on the ground of time bar, if the Assessee has w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter for reversing the Modvat credit at the time of export of goods as they were given to understand that the credit has to be reversed as the goods for export were cleared under bond without payment of duty. Subsequently, when they realised the correct position of law as mentioned in Rule 57F(4) they had, through letter dated 31-7-1995, requested the Asstt. Collector to refund the amount which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held that a letter written by the assessee to the Suptd. pointing out the excess payment made by them and requesting for refund of the same constitute a valid refund claim. The Tribunal held that formal claim filed subsequently was a continuation of the original claim, and therefore, not hit by time-bar under Section 11B. Accordingly, I hold that in both these appeals the refund claim cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
