9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to 21st May, 1989 is now time barred, if the refund application is made after six months from the date of export.The credit of the duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which has remained unutilised in respect of those consignments which were exported and sailed prior to 21st May, 1989 is now time barred, if the refund application is made after six months from the date of export. - Miles India Limited Vs Assistant Collector of Customs reported in [1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] if the application is time barred, the same is liable to be dismissed - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 55 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2015 - D. N. Patel And Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. For the Petitioner : M/s Dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing an order dated 26th February, 2007 and, hence, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside, as both the orders were passed twice in Order-in-Original and also in Order-in-Appeal. 3) Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the refund claim is filed beyond the period of limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. 4) Counsel for the respondent submitted that no error has been committed by CESTAT while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent vide order dated 26th February, 2007. No substantial question of law is involved in this matter. The refund claim made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notification No.85/87- CE dated 01.03.1987 permits only one refund application in a calendar year. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. 6) The Notification No.85/87-CE dated 1st March, 1987 is at Annexure 3 to the Memo of Appeal. It permits the refund application to be submitted not more than once in any quarter in a calendar year. 7) Thus, in a one quarter, one application is to be preferred, whereas, CESTAT has observed that the aforesaid notification permits only one application once in a calendar year. 8) It further appears from the facts of the case that the export date is 20th May, 1989. Refund claim in a proper formate as required as per Notification No.85/87-CE dated 1st March, 1987 was preferred on 22nd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case applications were preferred for refund of duty on the ground that it was erroneously recovered. The said applications were dismissed on the ground that the same were barred by time since they were not made within the time prescribed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. These appeals are against the said decisions. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and we do not see any infirmity in the order made by the authority rejecting the application. In the first place, in the proceedings which emanated for levy of duty the order became final and without having that order set aside by a competent court there would be no question of grant of refund merely on the ground that in some other case a different view was take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
