9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services, which have been used during the period April, 2007 to June, 2007 in the manufacture of the export goods, readymade garments and that this credit could not be used by them for payment of duty on clearance for home consumption, for the reason that they are 100% EOU having no DTA clearances. According to the Department, the refund claim for the quarter April, 2007 to June, 2007 was received on 18-2-2009. The appellants were issued show cause notice dated 1-5-2009 proposing rejection of their refund claim as time-barred as while the refund claim was for the April, 2007 to June, 2007 period, and the same as per the records of the Division Office had been received by the Asstt. Commissioner on 18-2-2009. The Asstt. Commissioner vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and without signature of the receiving persons. In this regard, the Tribunal's directions are reproduced below :- "4. It is claimed that letters addressed or refund claims addressed to the Divisional Officer is being acknowledged by affixing the date stamp without affixing the signature of the receipient of such letters/refund claims. The practice is widely prevalent. 5. In this particular case, it is claimed that they filed the application on 31-3-2008 claiming refund for the period April to June, 2007 which was acknowledged in the above manner, that the original application was reportedly misplaced by the Department and again they were asked to submit copy of the application which they submitted vide their letter dated 16-2-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Representative submitted report dated 20-10-2010 of the Commissioner, which is reproduced as under : - "This is in supersession of this office letter even no. 9746 dated 29-9-10 addressed to Departmental Representative. Please refer to Tribunal's Misc. Order No. 190/2010/SM dated 22-7-2010 in Appeal No. 611/2010-SM (BR) in case of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III. In this regard, it is mentioned that the practice followed by the office of Central Excise Division-III, Gurgaon, was that on receipt of documents by party a dated stamp without signature was put on the party's copy and immediately documents were registered in the inward register and receipt no. of the register was mentioned on the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1 Shri A.K. Jain, General Manager of the appellant company representing the appellant pleaded that refund claim for April, 2007 to June, 2007 period had been filed well in time i.e. 31-3-2008 and had been acknowledged by putting the Divisional officers' stamp with date but without any signature of the receiving person on Appellant's copy, that this was the practice in the Divisional Office of acknowledging the letters received from the assessees as well as the refund claims filed by them, that the refund claims filed for the previous period as well as later period have also been acknowledged in the same manner, that when after submitting of the refund claim to the Division Office on 31-3-2008, the refund claim was not received, they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Office on 31-3-2008, that the Commissioner in his report also stated that the receipt register as well as file opening register of the Division Office have been checked and the appellant's refund claim for an amount of Rs. 8,77,995/- claimed to have been submitted on 31-3-2008, is not figuring in the receipt register or in the file opening register, that from this, it is clear that the refund claim had not been submitted on 31-3-2008 and had been submitted on 18-2-2009 and hence the same had been rightly rejected as time-barred. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. The appellant's plea is that the refund claim for the period from April, 2007 to June, 2007 had been submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the register or file opening register, it cannot be inferred that the refund claim was not filed on 31-3-2008 as there was a practice of acknowledging the refund claims/letters received from the assessees just by putting a dated stamp by the divisional office but without signatures and there was always possibility that the refund claims received may have been mis-placed. The benefit of doubt, therefore, has to be given to the appellant. 5. In view of this, the impugned order upholding the rejection of refund application on the ground of time bar is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for examining the refund claim and deciding the same on merits. The appeal stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
