9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be within limitation as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the fact that the same was filed by the appellant on 18/05/2016. 2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the instant appeal it's better to have a look at Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and relevant clause of Notification No. 27/2012-CX. (N.T.) dated June 18, 2012 which are extracted as under:- ― "SECTION 11B - Claim for refund of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty. - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty may make an application for refund of such [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] to the [Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated the 14th March, 2006, published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R 156(E), dated the 14th March, 2006, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby directs that refund of CENVAT credit shall be allowed subject to the procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations as specified below, namely :-. 2. Safeguards, conditions and limitations. - Refund of CENVAT Credit under rule 5 of the said rules, shall be subjected to the following safeguards, conditions and limitations, namely :- (a) the manufacturer or provider of output service shall submit not more than one claim of refund under this rule for every quarter : Provided that a person exporting goods and service simultaneously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claimant from his CENVAT credit account at the time of making the claim. (i) In case the amount of refund sanctioned is less than the amount of refund claimed, then the claimant may take back the credit of the difference between the amount claimed and amount sanctioned". 3. The appellant before this Tribunal, for the first time took the plea that for the earlier periods till the year 2010 they were filing their refund claims with the Office of Development Commissioner, which were duly getting sanctioned. But later on for the subsequent period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 their claims were refused to be entertained by the Development Commissioner Office vide order dated 15/03/2013 and when they filed appeals before the DGFT, the DGFT vide i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944, if the period spent in pursuing remedies before wrongful authorities is excluded. The learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted that the disallowance by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also on the ground that the condition No.2(g) of para 2.0 of notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18/06/2012 was improper because clause 2(g) of the notification is only a restricting clause which only limits the amount of refund claim but does not give authority to disallow it altogether. 5. The learned AR appearing for the department reiterated the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. He further stated that the plea about the filing of claims by the appellant before the wrong authority, have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
