9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned Order No. 181/2013 (RAJ)C.E./AK/COMMR(A) /AHD dated 25-4-2013 passed by Respondent No. 2 by which the refund/refund claim of the petitioners have been rejected 4. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Ltd. Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the Company. The Petitioner No. 1 exports Alloy Steel Ingots and Carbon Steel Forged Flanges under ARE-1 No. 85 dated 30-8-2008, ARE-1 No. 149 dated 18-12-2009, ARE-1 No. 161 dated 9-11-2008, ARE-1 No. 04 dated 13-4-2010, ARE-1 No. 44 dated 6-7-2010 and ARE-1 No. 48 dated 13-7-2010. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that at the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Original dated 24-5-2012 passed by Respondent No. 4, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and by impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal confirming the Order-in-Original. 4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 rejecting the rebate claims of the petitioners, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri Paresh Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Cosmonaut Chemicals (supra) has submitted that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below have committed an error in rejecting the rebate claims with respect to the aforesaid ARE-1 Nos. 44 and 48. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present petition. 6. The present petition is opposed by Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that there was considerable long delay after receipt of the export promotion copy of shipping bills with respect to ARE-1 Nos. 85, 161, 149 and 4. There is no explanation whatsoever with respect to such a delay and, therefore, the authorities below have not committed any error in rejecting the rebate claims on the ground of limitation. However, she is not in a position to satisfy the orders rejecting the rebat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been submitted, such rebate claims could not have been dismissed/rejected on the ground of such limitation. That is not the case here. 7.1 Now so far as the remaining rebate claims with respect to ARE-1 Nos. 44 and 48 are concerned, it appears that the copies of the shipping bills were received on 12-8-2011 and 18-10-2011 respectively and the claims were submitted immediately on 11-10-2011. Under the circumstances, as such, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the petitioners in submitting the rebate claims with respect to ARE-1 Nos. 44 and 48 and, therefore, the impugned order deserve to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the rebate claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
