9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this office. Revision Application as per receipt stamp was received in the department on 01.05.2012 vide report Dy. No. 3415/12. As such, the applicant has failed to give any documentary evidences in support of their claim for the delay in filing of appeal. Under such circumstances, Government is of the considered opinion that onus to show cause for not filing application is on the applicant who has failed to show sufficient cause that prevented him from filing Revision Application within stipulated period of three months. The Revision Application has been made contrary to the provisions of Section 35EE (2) and is, therefore, liable for rejection. - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.195/407/12-RA - ORDER NO. 24/2016-CX - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than correct FOB value and therefore, there was excess payment of duty and excess rebate could not sanctioned by the adjudicating authority to the extent of said excess payment of ₹ 1,16,603/-. This being the position, even though Applicant has claimed rebate of duty paid on the CIF value instead of FOB value of each the consignment covered, an exporter is entitled to rebate of the entire duty of excise paid on a consignment of excisable goods on its export. 4.2 In the premises, below mentioned judgement of Honorable, Tribunal has clearly reveals that Applicant is entitled for the rebate of whole of the duty paid by him on export of excisable goods. Applicant has place reliance *upon judgment in case of [2010-TIOL-1663-CESTAT-BAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. The applicant has also filed on application for condonation of delay for delay of 4 days in filing Revision Application. 8. Government first proceeds to decide the issue of limitation in filing of Revision Applications after the stipulated three months period under Section 35 EE (2) of Central Excise Act 1944, as the applicant department has filed these revision application 4 days after initial stipulated three months period and as such, it is an undisputed fact that the Revision Application has been filed beyond the stipulated period of three months. 8.1 The time limit of filing Revision Application has been specified in S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Applications in time. 8.2 Government finds that the applicant in their application for condonation of delay has in a general manner mentioned that the delay in filing is due to postal delay even though application was sent by speed post as reason for delay in filing the Revision Application. Government notes that the applicant has relied upon copy of postal tracking report obtained from website of post department. On perusal of the same, Government notes that the details contained therein does not categorically substantiate the claim of the applicant that the impugned Revision Application was delivered on 24.04.2012 to this office. On the other hand the Revision Application as per receipt stamp was received in the department on 01.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
