9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. Since the original claim was withdrawn by applicant the claim filed on 29-6-2009 has to be treated as a fresh claim and time limit to be computed from 29-6-2009. As per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, rebate claim is to be filed with one year from the date of export. In this case claim filed after one year on 29-6-2009 is clearly time-barred and rightly rejected by lower authorities. - rebate claim is liable to be rejected and the impugned Order-in-Appeal cannot be faulted with - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 195/267/2011-RA-CX - Order No. 1748/2012-CX - Dated:- 10-12-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri Shaleen Baheti, Chartered Accountant, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-bar. (ii) It was further alleged that the applicants also paid Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @ 10% on the exported goods which was wrong, since BCD was not leviable on the exported goods. Basic Customs Duty was also not included in the definition of Duty for the purpose of rebate according to Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Therefore refund of the BCD was also not admissible. (iii) It was also alleged that since the assessee had the facility of duty free procurement of input and they had not availed benefit of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore the assessee wrongly paid duty from PLA on the exported goods. Thus the assessee tried to encash their balance lying in PLA, by paying duty on exported goods. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the deficiencies pointed out by the department were removed and claim was resubmitted, the rebate claim originally filed on 14-8-2007 is liable to be sanctioned and the same can not be treated as fresh claim. 4.3 The applicant has relied upon same case laws in favour of their contention. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 10-10-2012 was attended by Shri Shaleen Baheti, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the Applicant who reiterated the ground of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observe that, the applicant exported their go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear on 29-6-2009 is clearly time-barred and rightly rejected by lower authorities. 9. Government notes that it has been mentioned in impugned Order-in- Original that the applicant is a 100% EOU. Government finds that 100% EOUs are not required to pay duty as per provisions of Section 5A(1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 24/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003. As per explanation 1(A) to Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the manufacturer of such goods has no option to pay Central Excise Duty since Notification No. 24/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-3-2003 issued under Section 5A(1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 granting unconditional exemption from whole of duty in this case. C.B.E. C. has clarified vide letter F. No. 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
