9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule that refund claim is required to be filed on letter head and only then the refund claim shall be entertained. As there is no such prescribed procedure, therefore, refund claim filed by the respondent cannot be denied. Further, in this case question of foreign exchange realization does not arise as these export goods are free replacement of defective goods. - No infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, same is upheld - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 2241 of 2010- (SM) - ORDER NO. FO/ 53390 /2015-Ex (SM) - Dated:- 4-11-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri B B Sharma, AR For the Respondent : Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : Revenue is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been released by exporting the goods in question. In this case, respondent has already filed refund claim which shows their intention to claim the refund. Therefore, same cannot be ground for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, there is no prescribed rule that refund claim is required to be filed on letter head and only then the refund claim shall be entertained. As there is no such prescribed procedure, therefore, refund claim filed by the respondent cannot be denied. Further, in this case question of foreign exchange realization does not arise as these export goods are free replacement of defective goods. 7. With these observations, I have also perused the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decisions cited by the appellant but also by a number of other decisions delivered at different times by different Appellate authority/ Courts even by Honble Apex Court where in on every occasion the time limit computation is always counted from the initial date of filing of claim and not from the date of resubmission. Even otherwise there is no ground for rejection of claim on the grounds of time limit as the Show cause notice asking for rejection of claim and resulting in impugned order-in-original has never raised the question of time limit and accordingly the rejection of claim on the grounds of time limit never raised in Show cause notice is nothing but traverse beyond scope of show cause notice which is not acceptable in the eyes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viations from fulfillment of the procedural requirements should not be taken into considerations for deciding the fate of a claim. The citation quoted by the appellant which are squarely applicable in the instant claim has to be relied upon accordingly, (3) The authority while rejecting the claim has taken into account the non submission of bank realization certificate which has also been complied with by the appellant by submission of same and accordingly, cannot be a reason for rejection of claim. 8. On perusal of the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (dictated and pronounced in the open co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
