9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that: - when the claim was to be filed quarterly, the date of filing was to be computed from the last date of quarters - refund filed is within time limit. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1460-1464/2009-EX[SM] - A/71210-71214/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 29-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, for Appellant Shri D.K. Deb, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeals are filed by the appellants-assessee against Order-in-Appeal No.49-53/CE/APPL/NOIDA/09 dated 27/02/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U (M/S Delphi). The meaning of export as derived from the Central Excise Act Customs Act, read together means- taking goods out of India. The clearance in the facts is deemed export and not actual export. Supportings in case of actual export like shipping bill, bill of lading duly certified by Customs Department is not filed. Only CT-3 certificate and re-warehousing certificates have been filed, which do not prove actual export. One of the refund claim filed on 28.03.2007 for quarter January to March, 2006 was rejected on time-bar. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant-assessee filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the orders of original authority O-I-A dated 27.02.2009. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisable goods, which can be purchased from a specified manufacturer, for the EOU. 6. Ld. Counsel for appellant relies on the ruling of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs v/s NBM Industries, 2012 (276) E.L.T. 9 where it have been held, Refund of Cenvat credit was available on inputs used in manufacture of goods cleared by DTA unit to 100% EOU that Refund could not be denied on ground that it was a case of deemed export, under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The learned Counsel further relies upon the Final Order of this Tribunal No.A/71123/2016-SM(BR) dated 11.11.2016 passed in the case of appellant itself, on same issue, whereby the appeal has been allowed. As regard the rejection of refund claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
