9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944. In particular portion (A)(i) of the Explanation to Section 11B ibid, namely the date on which the ship in which the goods are loaded leaves India. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the refund claims in these two shipping bills have indeed been filed within a period of one year from the date on which the concerned ship left India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been filed beyond one year from the let export date as mandated under Notification 17/2009-ST. The lower appellate authority upheld the adjudication order vide impugned order dated 9.9.2010. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. We find that the entire issue will hinge on what is the relevant date for filing the refund, whether that prescribed under Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order permitting clearance and loading of the said goods for exportation under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) 3. We find that the case law of ITW Signode India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise 2003 (158) ELT 403 (SC), relied upon by the ld. consultant clarifies this imbroglio. The Hon ble Apex Court in that judgment, has unequivocally laid down that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bimetal Bearing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 2008 (232) ELT 790 (Tri. LB) has also held that scope of statutory provision cannot be enlarged or reduced by circulars or instructions. 5. Viewed in this light, we are of the considered opinion that the relevant date will have to be adjudged as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
