9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had filed refund claim of Rs. 6,05,866/- against bills of entry no. 6690691 dated 30/04/2012 and 6893142 dated 22/5/2012 in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14/9/2007. The appellant had already filed separate refund claim on 6/5/2013 for an amount of Rs. 21,92,938/-. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that appellant violated the condition of Para 4.2 of CBEC Circular No. 06/2008-Cus dated 28/4/2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was rejected on the following findings:- 6. I find that the appellant had cleared goods against Bill of Entry bearing NO,. 6690091/30.04.2012 and 6893142/22.05.2012 and claimed SAD refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against which the present claim was made was unsold and the quantity in respect of both the bills of entry were sold during the period 12/5/2013 to 20/5/2013. It is his submission that as per the date of deposit of duty, one year period in respect of both the bills of entry getting expired on 25/5/2013 and therefore there was no option except to file the refund claim within the month of May 2013 itself. He submits that if the contention of the ld. lower authority is accepted and accordingly if the refund claim would have been filed in the month of June 2013, in such case the refund claim could have become time bar. Therefore they have not made any contravention of the Board's Circular. He also submits that for claiming refund under Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the one year period. Further, since the Sales Tax (ST) / Value Added Tax (VAT) is being paid on periodical or monthly basis, even in case of bills of entry where the entire quantity of goods are sold within a month, all such cases shall be consolidated in a single refund claim and filed with the Customs authorities on a monthly basis. In other words, there would be a single refund claim in respect of one importer in a month irrespective of the number of Bills of Entry (B/Es) processed by the respective Commissionerate." From the careful reading of the above para, it is clear that though the procedure is prescribed that there would be a single refund claim in respect of one importer in a month irrespective of the number of Bills of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the notification will become redundant. In similar situation this Tribunal in the case of B.S.L. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur (supra) has held that the refund under Rule 5 is permissible despite the claim having been second time in a month which is violation of condition of 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1/3/2002. In my view this was held keeping in mind that though there is procedure to file one refund in a month or in the quarter as case may be but since time limit of one year is prescribed for filing refund claim the said procedure infraction should not come in way of the substantial claim of the assessee. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for refund claim. Hence the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
