9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med, have been exported – waiver of pre-deposit allowed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 22-10-2010 by which the refund claim of Rs. 28,10,352/- was rejected and the demand of Rs. 22,25,328/- already paid was confirmed along with interest. 1.4 On appeal to C.C.E. (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner's order was upheld vide order-in-appeal dated 29-3-2011. 1.5 Against the above order of C.C.E. (Appeals), this appeal along with stay application has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that so far as refund claim of Rs. 21,54,842/- is concerned, the same is sought to be rejected on the ground that 18 export consign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid to the appellant, that the appellant have a strong prima facie case and that in view of this, the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount demanded and interest on it may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri I. Beg, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, opposed the appellant's plea for waiver of the pre-deposit by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The dispute in this case is about cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit of Rs. 28,10,352/- filed by the appellant under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; or (c) date of despatch of goods by post office concerned to a place outside India in case of export by post. 6.1 Thus the provisions of Explanation B(a)(i) to Section 11B, referred to is the impugned order only define the "relevant date" and in this case it is not the dispute that the refund claim was not filed within a period of one year from the relevant date i.e. the date of shipment. It is also not the allegation that the goods in respect of which refund has been claimed were not exported. The refund of Rs. 21,54,842/- in respect of 18 consignments cleared for export under ARE-1s during September 2008 is sought to be rejected on the ground that the goods were not exported during September 2008 but were exported during October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
