9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textile. The said condition is a substantive condition for allowing refund claim and being a part of the notification cannot be ignored. Reliance placed on the decision of Golden Dew Tea Factory Vs. CCE Coimbatore [2006 (11) TMI 530 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] where it was held that while interpreting a notification number 41/99-CE that conditions of the notification are mandatory and not mere procedural and hence non fulfillment of the same is not condonable. There is no rule for any intendment while interpreting the notification and regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words used therein. I find that appellant have not admittedly fulfilled the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the case, held that in respect of refund claim pertaining to period of February 2012 because the first export is effected vide Export Invoice No. AAK01100024 dated 13.02.2012 and the let Export order date of the shipping bill no. 7564321 dated 27.02.2012 is 12.12.2012, hence, the relevant date of filing the subject claim for the period of February 2012 should be on or before 11.02.2013. However, as the subject refund claim application had been filed on 19.02.2013 as such, in the instant case, out of the 43 shipping bills, exports made through 15 shipping bills having leo dated before 20.02.2012 are liable to be rejected. The original adjudicating authority also held that the appellant has failed to fulfill the condition as laid down a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted as a reason for denial of the refund. 4. I find no merits in the above contention of the Ld. Advocate. 5. The para 3 of the notification clearly lays down that the refund shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the goods and explanation attached to the said condition clearly lays down that the date of export shall be the date on which the proper officer of the Customs makes an order permitting clearance of the goods. Admittedly in the present case, the refund stands filed by the appellant after the let-go order was passed by the Customs. As such the limitation aspect which stands provided in the notification itself, cannot be diluted and the refund filed after that date cannot be held admissible. 6. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
