9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the outward freight recovered by them from their dealers from the period 01.04.2006 to 13.09.2006, even though the place of removal of goods was their factory gate and the sale of goods had taken place at the factory gate. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority as time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and also on merit on the ground that the excess amount of freight collected by the party from its buyers and not paid to the transporters was includible in the transaction value and hence liable to duty. The appellant went in appeal. Ld. Commissioner (A) rejected the claim as time barred and dismissed the appeal as non maintainable. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant have filed this appeal. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgued that the claim shall be taken as filed only when of relevant documents are made available. He relied on the following judgments. 6. Heard the parties and perused the record. 7. We find that the Central Excise duty was paid in this case through challan dated 22.01.2007. Admittedly, the refund claim was filed on 22.01.2018 as is evident from paragraph 2 of the order of Commissioner (A). Since Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, which is applicable in determining as to when the period of limitation begins, the period of limitation in this case should commence from 23.01.2007 and, by following that date, the statutory period of one year finishes on 22.01.2008. Since the appellant had filed their refund claim application on 22.01.2008, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12th June, 2003, hence that should be taken as the filing date. In rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, both the authorities below had observed that the date on which refund claim was filed only after removal of defects, be considered as the date of filing of the refund claim. We do not find force in the observation/reasoning of the Department, inasmuch as the refund of duty was sought, after having been paid in excess at the time of removal/clearance of the goods from the factory and the same was filed on 11th Dec.2012. The cause of action arose on the date of payment of duty, and the claim had been filed within the time stipulated under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944, as prescribed on 11.12.2002. The mandate of Sub Sec.(2) of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
