TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to notification issued under Rule 57F. It is in our opinion procedural in nature rather than mandatory - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1225/2009 - A/2181/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 22-10-2009 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, C.A., for the Appellant. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of limitation. Hence, the appeal. 2. Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, learned Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appeal is only to uphold the refund of Rs. 3,13,878/- sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority. He submits that the claim has been made under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He drew my attention to the Clause 6 of Notification issued under Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the claim has been rejected on the ground that it was not filed within the time limit specified under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. As rightly pointed out by the learned Chartered Accountant, Clause 6 of the notification issued under Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and relevant extracts of form R.G. 23-A or deemed credit register maintained in respect of textile fabrics in original as the case may be as provided, in Clause 6 of Appendix to notification issued under Rule 57F. Once the appellant (Assessee) was able to satisfy these requirements to the satisfaction of authority concern then they were entitled to claim the refund of duty paid on inputs. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
