9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m has to be treated as having been filed on 07.01.2011. Therefore, by following the ratio of order in the case of Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE [1996 (3) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT], the application for refund was filed within time and the same is not barred by limitation. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - Appeal No. ST/41562/2014 - Final Order No. 41746/2015 - Dated:- 18-11-2015 - P. K. Choudhary, Member (J) For the Appellant : Mr R Karthikeyan, Adv For the Respondent : Mr R Subramaniyan, AC (AR) ORDER Being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.04.2014, the appellant M/s. Tab India Granites Pvt. Ltd., preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by this order of the adjudicating authority, the appellants preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence the present appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel, Shri R. Karthikeyan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant Company submitted that the refund claim was filed within the stipulated period of one year as prescribed under the Notification No. 17/2009 dated 02.07.2009. The refund claim filed by them was returned on 11.03.2011. The appellants resubmitted the refund claim with all the relevant documents on 02.05.2011. This time the claim was not returned instead a letter has been sent to the Range Officer to obtain the original documents from the appellants. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e -18 of the paper book, which refers that the appellants are regularly filing the refund claim and otherwise the only claim which got delayed and requested for condonation. He relied on the citation mentioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his OIA at page-14 of the paper book. - CCE, Kanpur Vs. Lohia Machines Ltd. 1987 (32) ELT 182 (Tri.) - General Manager, BSNL Vs. CCE, Guntur 2009 (14) STR 250 (Tri.-Bang.) - Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. CCECoimbatore - 1986 (23) ELT 174 (Tri.) - Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE 1996 (88) ELT A127 (S.C.) 6. Heard both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the refund application was filed within the stipulated period of one year from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary verification, forwarded it to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the time limit for filing the refund claim is to be computed from the date of submission of the refund claim to the Superintendent, Central Excise. The Tribunal also held that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after its amendment on 6-8-1977 applies to all refund claims and so also the time limit of six months provided thereunder. Respectfully following the ratio of the order cited above, I hold that the application for refund was filed within time and the same is not barred by limitation. 7. In this view of the matter, since the claim has to be treated as having been filed on 07.01.2011 and, therefore, within time, the impugned order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
