9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions, it reveals that the statute mandates filing of refund applications within the stipulated time frame. In the present case, since the refund applications were filed by the appellant within the prescribed statutory time limit, documents in support of such claim submitted later-on should not be considered as the date of filing of fresh application for the purpose of consideration of the limitation period. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/87029 & 87045/2017 - A/86825-86826/2018 - Dated:- 12-6-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri M.P. Joshi, Advocate for appellant Shri M.P. Damle, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty These a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, while adjudicating the matter, the department had rejected the refund applications filed by the appellant on the ground of limitation. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 22.05.2017 has upheld rejection of refund applications by the adjudicating authority. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that filing of refund applications electronically was accepted by the CBEC as proper mode of claiming the refund. Thus, he submits that since the appellant had filed the refund applications within one year from the relevant date, subsequent fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim applications were filed by the appellant after the limitation period prescribed under the Notification dated 18.06.2012 read with Section 11B ibid. On perusal of the statutory provisions, it reveals that the statute mandates filing of refund applications within the stipulated time frame. In the present case, since the refund applications were filed by the appellant within the prescribed statutory time limit, documents in support of such claim submitted later-on should not be considered as the date of filing of fresh application for the purpose of consideration of the limitation period. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the refund applications rejected by the authorities below are not in consonance with the statutory provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed on proper form or without necessary documents the Department can direct the appellants to file the same in proper prescribed from along with supporting documents. But as far as the time for filing the refund claim is concerned, it has to be considered from the date the refund claim was filed initially in the form not prescribed or without documents. This was the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of A. P. Pager Mills Ltd., in which an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amrit Paper Mills Ltd. - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 293 was relied upon wherein it was held that a letter written by the assessee to the Suptd. pointing out the excess payment made by them and requesting for refund of the same constitute a valid refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
