9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri N.K. Chaudhury, Advocate for the appellant Sri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.33/KOL-VI/2012 dated-07/12/2012 passed by the Commr. (Appeals), Kolkata-III) as first appellate authority. 2. Shri N.K. Chaudhury, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that refund claim of ₹ 1,46,444/- has been rejected by the first appellate authority as time barred. It is the case of the appellant that refund claim was filed in time in the month of November, 2009 within one year. That appellant did not submit a certificate from the jurisdictional Superintendent of the Customs regarding non-availmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the refund claim in November, 2009 but was asked to produce certain documents which were also produced alongwith the refund claim again on 25/08/2010. First Appellate Authority has taken a view that relevant date of filing the refund claim should be taken as 25/8/2010 when refund claim was filed after rectification. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the case law of this Bench in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Kolkata-VI- 2015 (315) ELT 100 (Tri.-Kolkata). After going through the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 this Bench made following observations in para 5.1 while allowing the refund claim of the appellant:- 5.1 Now, reverting to the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r may reject it. However, instead of rejection of the claim, it was directed by the Department on 5-3-2003, to file more documents/removal of defects, which the Appellant had carried out the said direction by removing the defects. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the refund claim was filed for the first time on 12th June, 2003 and hence, barred by limitation. In our view, the date of claiming the refund of duty paid in excess, be the date when the claim was launched with the department i.e. on 11th December, 2002. In view of the above cited case laws, appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed, as the facts in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. (supra) in the case of the appellant themselves, were similar to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
