9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944, it should have been lodged with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within one year of the relevant date which is 7-1-2010 in this case - Thus the rebate claim should have been filed by the applicant by 6-1-2011. But the applicant has filed the rebate claim on 5-9-2011 which is undisputedly beyond the prescribed period of one year. The contention that the time limitation is me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mainly on the ground that they had already submitted triplicate and quadruplicate copies of ARE-I in the Range Office on 5-1-2010 and the formal application for claiming rebate was later on filed on 5-9-2011 with all documents. Hence, the date of filing rebate claim in this case should be considered as 5-1-2010 and not 5-9-2011. Personal Hearings were offered on 19-9-2017 and thereafter on 5-10- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been lodged with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within one year of the relevant date which is 7-1-2010 in this case. Thus the rebate claim should have been filed by the applicant by 6-1-2011. But the applicant has filed the rebate claim on 5-9-2011 which is undisputedly beyond the prescribed period of one year. The claim of the applicant that they had submitted the copy of ARE-Is to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport of the goods and for processing the rebate claim. Thus, the mere submission of ARE-I cannot be treated as filing of the rebate claim as claimed by the applicant and it is contradicted by the applicant s own subsequent action in as much as they filed actual rebate claim on 5-9-2011 as per their own admission. Considering these facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly upheld the Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the present case. Several decisions of the High Court and the Tribunal relied upon by the applicant in the Revision Application are not found relevant to the present case as all the relied upon decisions have dealt with the cases where the incomplete rebate/refund claims were filed earlier and the required documents were submitted later on. But in none of the cases, it is held that mere submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
