9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as required to be filed and the refunds were to be determined by the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed on the monthly returns filed which Is the stipulations of the notification - Appeal is allowed - E/574/2007 - A/229/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 27-7-2011 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Mrs. Chandreyi Alam (Gupta), Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Mishra, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (T)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 19/CE(A)/GHY/07 dated 30-7-2007. 2. The relevant facts arising for consideration are that the appellants herein had filed a refund claim for the amount of duty paid by them through PLA during the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefits under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. It is her submission that the impugned order has not considered this fact with the proper perspective and has set aside the claim made by the appellants. It is her submission that the stipulated date which is mentioned in the Notification is a procedural aspect as has been held by the Bench in the case of C.C.E., Dibrugarh v. Napuk Tea Estate M/s. Muttrapore Tea Estate in Final Order No. 593/Kol/06, dated 12-7-2006 [2007 (219) E.L.T. 178 (Tri.-Kolkata)]. 4. Ld. DR for the Revenue also submits that the refund claim if any needs to be sanctioned if they file statement within time and in this case the refund claims have been filed beyond stipulated date as mentioned in the said Notification. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l indicates that the appellants had filed RT-12 Returns with the lower authorities wherein there was a claim for benefit of Notification 33/99. If that be so, we find that the ratio of the decision of this Bench in the case of Napuk Tea Estate (cited supra) squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant. With respect, we may reproduce the decision in its entirety : This matter was heard pursuant to an order of the Hon ble High Court of Kolkata in WP No. 575/06, dated April, 28, 2006. The appellant is Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh and the respondents are an assessee of a Tea Factory manufacturing tea. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while interpreting the provisions of Section 11B, dated 8-7-1999 held that filing of state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Central Excise passed on the monthly returns filed which Is the stipulations of the notification. For further material if the Assistant Collector so received would have been sought from the applicants. We find that the Assistant Collector in having availed to benefit of Notification cannot deny the applicants of their due claims. We find no merits in the grounds taken by Revenue and reject the same after confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal rejected. 9. Respectfully following the ratio of the said decision, we hold that portion of the impugned order which is against the appellants and challenged for rejecting the refund claim, is liable to be set aside and we do so. The appeal is allowed to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
