9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the appellant has not produced documents such as original invoices, Self certification on input service, FIRC/BRC copies - time limitation. HELD THAT:- The appellant has claimed rebate in respect of services such as transportation charges, stuffing of cargo, CHA, THC etc. - It is found there is no allegation either in the Notice or in the impugned order that these services were not used in connection with export of goods. It is observed that the only condition prescribed in N/N. 41/2012 for allowing the rebate is that the specified services should be utilized in the export of goods. The proceedings pending before appellate authority for violation of condition of Notifications 51/2003 and 21/2003 cannot be a reason for rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that the claim was hit by the bar of limitation - the rebate claim was originally filed on 28.06.2013, which was within the period of one year from the date of export. The date of re-submission is not the date of filing of the rebate claim - the claim has been filed within the time period of 1 year from the date of export and it is not hit by limitation of time. Appeal disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod from July 2012 to December 2013. The department issued 5 Show Cause Notices proposing to reject the rebate claims filed by the appellant on the ground that they have violated the condition of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003, in as much as the Granite Blocks manufactured by the appellant were directly exported from the Quarry without getting processed from the premises of the EOU. 2.2. The Notices also proposed rejection of the rebate claims on the ground that the appellant has not produced documents such as original invoices, Self certification on input service, FIRC/BRC copies. In respect of the claim filed for the period July 2012 to September 2012, the claim was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 has been filed with the department. She submits that they will be able to explain before the appropriate authority about their claim of fulfillment of the conditions of the Notification No. 41/ 2012. 5.1. Regarding the issue of time bar raised in one of the rebate claims for the period of July 2012 to September 2012, she submits that they have originally filed the claim on 28.06.2013, but it was returned and re-presented on 13.09.2013. As they have submitted the original claim within the period of 1 year from the date of export, there is no time bar in filing the said rebate claim. Accordingly, she prayed for allowing all the rebate claims filed by them. 6. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31.06.2003 is legally not sustainable. 9. Regarding the allegation of non-production of documents for the purpose of processing the rebate claim, such as Original invoices, Self certification on input services, FRIC/BRC copies etc., the appellant submits that they have furnished all original documents before the appropriate authority along with the rebate claims. However, these documents were not examined by the proper officer and the rebate claims were rejected on the ground that they have not fulfilled the condition of Notification 51/2003 and 21/2003. It is the submission of the appellant that they will be able to explain before the proper officer that all the documents required for the purpose of processing the rebate claims were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
