9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-I and therefore held that the refund application has been filed by the appellant/assessee with the Assistant Commissioner. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore directed the Assistant Commissioner to process the refund claim and decide the same on merits by observing the principles of natural justice. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to observe that as per Board s Circular No. 130/41/95-CX., dated 30-5-95 Collector s (Commissioners) were required to direct the divisional Assistant Commissioner s to designate an officer by name to carry out the scrutiny of refund claim filed and to issue acknowledgement thereafter. Revenue further submits that as per Trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the division. He further submitted that the refund claim filed with the Inspector/Superintendent of the range, who has to transmit to the Assistant Commissioner and such refund claim have been treated as filed with the Assistant Commissioner and the date of filing has been treated in such cases as the date on which such refund claim has been received by the Inspector/Superintendent of the same range. In this connection he relies on the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. v. CC, Chennai as reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 815 and that of Indian Training Industries v. CC, Chennai as reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 776. He also relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered on 18-3-96 [1996 (84) E.L.T. A52 (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim received by the PA to Assistant Commissioner has to be treated as received in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of the Division. We are therefore in agreement to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) contained in para 7 of the impugned order. We are also in agreement with the submissions made by the Counsel for the respondent and respectfully following the judgments cited in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. v. CC, Chennai as reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 815 and that of Indian Training Industries v. CC, Chennai as reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 776 and the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and Prag Vanaspati Products which have already held that the refund claim recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
