2015 (10) TMI 1323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmissions of learned AR that rebate claim is not bearing the name of the officer receiving the rebate claim and has not put any stamp is not acceptable. I further observed that lot of correspondence has been exchanged. I have seen in the past 6 years and in almost every document received by the departmental officer has no name and is unstamped. Therefore, the contention of the learned AR is not f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed their rebate claim for the services availed in the course of export of goods for the period January, 2008 to March, 2008 while the refund claim was filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Shimla on 28-5-2008. The refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the premise that rebate claim was not filed within time limit prescribed as per Notification No. 41/07. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntention of the learned AR is not acceptable in the light of report submitted by the Range officer dated 22-9-2010 confirming that refund claim has been filed within time. Therefore, the submissions of learned AR that rebate claim is not bearing the name of the officer receiving the rebate claim and has not put any stamp is not acceptable. I further observed that lot of correspondence has been exc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X