9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law of limitation provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply to the claim of refund claimed pursuant to notification issued under Rule 57F. It is in our opinion procedural in nature rather than mandatory - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order and rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. Hence, the appeal. 2. Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, learned Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appeal is only to uphold the refund of Rs. 3,13,878/- sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority. He submits that the claim has been made under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He drew my attenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions cited by the learned Chartered Accountant. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the claim has been rejected on the ground that it was not filed within the time limit specified under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. As rightly pointed out by the learned Chartered Accountant, Clause 6 of the notification issued under Rule 57F of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h application all necessary proof regarding exportation of goods and relevant extracts of form R.G. 23-A or deemed credit register maintained in respect of textile fabrics in original as the case may be as provided, in Clause 6 of Appendix to notification issued under Rule 57F. Once the appellant (Assessee) was able to satisfy these requirements to the satisfaction of authority concern then they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
