9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product which was ultimately exported as replacement of the earlier defective goods. The respondent filed a refund claim of the duty paid on the exported goods. The show cause notice was issued to the respondent on the ground that as respondent has shown the goods on invoices, (the goods is not free replacement), therefore the intention of refund claim was not indicated. Further, the request of the claim of refund is not on the letter head of the respondent and the respondent has not released any foreign exchange for supply of the exported goods. Initially the refund claim was rejected but on appeal, after examining all the issues the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim. 3. Learned AR reiterated the grounds for issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund or not for goods in question exported between 16.1.2007 to 21.4.2007. The authority while rejecting has given and considered a number of grounds and accordingly I am also discussing them one by one. (1) The authority at the very first stage has rejected the claim on the grounds of hit by time limit as provided under section 11 B of the Act. However, on going through the case records and also as admitted by the Adjudicating Authority in impugned Order-in-Original I find that the claim for the goods exported between 16.1.2007 to 21.4.2007 was initially filed on 15.01.2008 which was returned to Appellant for rectifications and was against resubmitted after making due rectifications as desired by department on 25.08.2009. Under these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Rules, 2002. On this point, I agree with the Appellants that no such condition is there in the referred Notification as on going through the said Notification I do not find any such condition therein. Though on going through para 8.3 of chapter 8 of the CBEC Manual of supplementary instructions, I find this condition but the same though not essential in nature is for those cases where the export is made through third party or where the manufacturer is not an exporter. Accordingly in the instant case where the manufacturer himself is an exporter this condition which is not mandatory in nature can be condoned off and accordingly the same is condoned. It is also a fact that the export of goods on which refund is sought was never in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
