9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGEMENT Per. D.N. Panda :- In all the four appeals it is grievance of the assessee that the rebate claims made on the respective dates as per the detailed chart filed and extracted below when found to be defective that was not informed to the appellant within time frame prescribed by CBEC nor the documents filed by the appellant looked into by the authority to dispose the claim within the time frame prescribed. A. Appeal No. 3174/2005 B. Appeal No. 3175/2005 C. Appeal No. 3176/2005 Date Events 19/11/2003 Rebate claim filed - Rs. 6,61,937 [Appeal No. 3174/2005] Rebate claim filed -Rs. 45,00,087/- [Appeal No. 3175/2005] Rebate claim filed -Rs. 6,13,99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with rebate claim 08/01/2004 Copy of Bill of Lading filed before the Assistant Commissioner 14/07/2004 Memorandum (order) passed by Assistant Commissioner allowing rebate claim -No mention of any interest for delay in grant of rebate claim 20/02/2004 to 14/07/2004 Interest u/s 11BB -Rs. 24,983/- 29/06/2005 Commissioner (Appeal) s order disallowing interest 2. CBE C has issued following guideline on the rebate claim. 8. Sanction of claim for rebate by Central Excise 8.1 The rebate claim can be sanctioned by any of the following officers of Central Excise :- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itimate claim of the appellant. 4. Learned DR has no material to contradict the date chart filed by the appellant. 5. Ms. Vaidhi Sharma appearing for the appellant under a power of attorney says that the appellant vouches authenticity of the date chart filed and extracted as above which has been culled out from the departmental documents available in the record of the appellant. 6. When the appellant makes an averment of vouching the veracity of the dates and events in the table aforesaid, interest of justice cannot be paralysed keeping the matter pending in the Tribunal. Prima facie, the date chart aforesaid clearly indicates that there was delay of 70 days, 21 days, 135 days and 36 days in appeal No. E/3174 of 2005, E/3175 of 2005, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
