9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived so that the claimant is not hit by limitation period. The instant case falls in this category. Accordingly, it is observed that the initial date of filing of the rebate claim i.e. 22.07.2015 is the relevant date as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the rebate claims are not barred by limitation. It is observed that technical deviations or procedural lapses are to be condoned, if there is sufficient evidence regarding the export of the duty paid goods - the refund claim is within the prescribed time limit and the same requires to be disposed of in accordance with law. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider and dispose the refund claim in accordance with law - Appeal allowed by way of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant while upholding the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 3. That the Appellant being a manufacturer exporter submitted a refund application on 22.07.2015 amounting to Rs.3,83,555/- in the prescribed Form A-1 along with the relevant documents covering the period 2014-15 as per Service Tax Notification No.41/2012 S.T. dated 29.06.2012 in respect of Service Tax paid on services used for Export of Goods manufactured by them to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Bardhaman Division, Bolpur Commissionerate. The Refund application was duly received by the said divisional Office, Bardhaman Division on 22.07.2015. After filing the said refund application by the Appellant, several correspondences for submission/re-submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise manual chapter 9 para 3.2, it has been mentioned as follows - "The Divisional office will scrutinize the claim, in consultation with Range, where necessary, and check that the refund application is complete and is covered by all the requisite documents. This should be done at the time of receipt of refund claim and in case of any deficiency, the same should be pointed out to the Appellant with a copy to the Range Officer within 15 days of receipt." In respect of the present refund claim submitted by the Appellant on 22.07.2015, the above principle/procedures fixed by the CBEC, have not been followed by the department. No deficiency memo in respect of the said refund claim submitted by the Appellant has been issued by the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the above backdrop, the refund claim application has attained finality on 22.07.2016. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the date of refund application should be 22.07.2016." The Ld.Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Bardhaman Division rejected the claim of refund of Service Tax amounting to Rs.2,14,438/- (Original claim was Rs.3,83,555/-) on the ground of limitation of time of one year. (v) That the original refund claim for the period 2014-15 (w.e.f. August 2014) has been submitted by the on 22.07.2015, i.e. within the prescribed time limit of one year. Additional documents were submitted/re-submitted as per verbal instructions of the departmental officers from time to time. Hence the contention of the Ld.Assistant Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
