9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against the Final Order No. 112-CE/BPL/2003, dated 24-4-2003, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs Central Excise, Bhopal. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants cleared excisable goods during the period from September, 1999 to November, 1999 in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Enzo Chem Laboratories P. Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (113) E.L.T. 303 (T)]. It was further found that the claim is barred by time. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the view of the Original authority and upheld the rejection of the refund claim. The Appellants strongly challenged the findings of the lower authority. Hence they have come before the Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri Venkatesh, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods exported is the date on which the goods crossed the Indian frontiers. A time-limit of one year from the relevant date is there for filing the claim. In the present case, the relevant date is 25-10-2000 and rebate claim was filed on 29-6-2001. Thus the claim was filed within time from the relevant date. (iii) The decision of the CEGAT in the case of Enzo Chem Laboratories P. Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department, the assessee is entitled to claim refund under Rule 173L. 4. The learned SDR pointed out that even though on merits, the appellant is entitled for refund, the same cannot be granted in view of the time bar. He said that originally duty was paid during September, 1999 to November, 1999 but the refund claim was filed only on 26-6-2001. Hence, the claim is clearly time bar. 5. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
