9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' with the details of rebate with the respondent office on 13.08.2007 and 13.03.2008, under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No.19/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04, as amended. Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.05.2009 and 17.06.2008 respectively, the appellant further furnished the mandatory documents. Since the appellant had filed all the mandatory documents on 22.05.2009 and 17.06.2008 respectively, the date filing of rebate claims will be treated on that particular date. Further, on scrutiny of rebate claims, it was observed that the rebate claims were filed after one year from the date of shipment. The respondent, after going through the case records, rejected both the claims as hit by limitation of time as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed and set aside on the ground that it is passed against the principle of Natural Justice. 4.3 The applicants differ from the said presumption that the rebate claim has been filed on 22.5.2009 & 17/06/2008 and humbly submit that the same has been submitted on 13.8.2007 & 31/03/2008 with all the available documents and the balanced document on receipt from the Custom Authority were submitted on 22.5.2009 & 17/06/2008. The whole proceedings based on said incorrect presumption leading to incorrect findings and incorrect conclusion deserves to be set aside. 4.4 The Applicants humbly submit that goods were cleared from factory on 18.8.2006 & 12/04/2007 and were shipped on 20.8.2006 & 20/04/2007. The original and duplicate copy of ARE- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erusal of records, Government observes that the instant two rebate claims of Rs. 197729/- and Rs. 292151/- were rejected as time barred on the ground that thought incomplete rebate claims were initially filed within one year, yet certain documents like ARE-1 original/duplicate copies were filed after expiry of one year. Now, applicant has contested the impugned orders-in-appeal on the grounds stated above. 8. Government notes that the export details and dates of filing rebate claim as discussed in para 8 of order-in-appeal are as under: "8. In this context, I find the appellant had filed two rebate claims and one case, the appellant filed Form C alongwith ARE-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms late were submitted after lapse of period of one year. This factual position is not in dispute. 10. Government notes that there are catena of judgment wherein it has been held that time limit to be computed from the date on which refund / rebate claim was originally filed. High Court and CESTA Tribunal, have held in following cases that original refund/rebate claim filed initially within prescribed time limit laid down in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the claim resubmitted along with some required documents/prescribed format on direction of department after the said time limit cannot be held time barred as the time limit should be computed from the date on which rebate claim was initially filed. (i) CCE Delhi-I Vs. Ary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
