TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowledged in the same manner just by putting dated stamp of the divisional office without any signature of the person receiving the same - The benefit of doubt, therefore, has to be given to the appellant - rejection of refund application on the ground of time bar is not sustainable. - ST/611/2010-SM(BR) - 1455/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 24-11-2010 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri A.K. Jain, General Manager and Dinesh Mittal, for the Appellant. Shri A. Khanna, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under :- 1.1 The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 8,72,995/-under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that their unit is a 100% EOU and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) against the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 16-2-2010 dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order also observed that the Department vide letter dated 1-9-2008 had informed the appellants that neither the Divisional Office (Technical brand) nor the concerned Range Office had received their refund application for an amount of Rs. 8,72,995/- on 31-3-2008. It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appeal has been filed. 1.2 When this matter was heard on 22-7-2010, the Tribunal passed a miscellaneous order no. 190/2010-SM (BR) directing the Commissioner to investigate the appellant s submissions regarding the practice of acknowledging, lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of the appellant on the practice of acknowledgement and file a factual report. The present practice of acknowledgement of letters/refund claims by the Division/Commissionerate authorities should also be specifically mentioned. If the practice as claimed by the appellant continues, the authority for following such practice should also be quoted. 8. If any remedial action was taken and any revised instructions issued by Commissioner, the same should also be brought on record. 9. The matter is adjourned to 31-8-2010. 1.3 Subsequently, this matter came up for hearing on 30-9-2010, the Tribunal once again directed the Commissioner to submit the report in terms of the Tribunal s order dated 22-7-2010. 1.4 Today, at the time of he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is mentioned that suitable instruction for proper receipt/acknowledgement showing date of receipt, diary no., signature name of proper officer by field formation has been issued. 1.5 Thus, in this report, the Commissioner has confirmed that in office of the Central Excise Division-III, Gurgaon, there was, indeed, a practice of acknowledgement of the letters received from the assessees by putting a dated stamp without signature on the party s copy. He also mentioned that the captioned refund claim filed by the appellant for the period April, 2007 to June, 2007 for the amount of Rs. 8,72,995/- was not found received as per the receipt register on 31-3-2008 and in the file opening register, there was no entry regarding this refund clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment in respect of the submissions of their refund application on 31-3-2008, no refund application had been submitted on that date and that since the refund application was submitted on 31-3-2008 and was within the time, the impugned order upholding the refund claim as time-barred is incorrect. 2.2 Shri A. Khanna, ld. Departmental Representative defending the impugned order, pleaded that though the Commissioner confirms that there was practice in the Division Office of acknowledging the letters and applications received from the assessees only by putting dated stamp and without signatures of the persons receiving the letters/applications, just on this basis, it cannot be assumed that the appellants refund application had, indeed, been rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the refund claim for the period January, 2007 to March, 2007 period submitted on 27-11-2007 has also been acknowledged exactly in the same manner just by putting dated stamp of the divisional office without signature of the receiving person. The Commissioner s report submitted also confirms that there was such a practice of acknowledging the letters received from the assessees in this manner i.e. just by putting dated stamp of the divisional stamp but without signature of the receiving persons. In view of this, just because the acknowledgment produced by the appellant in respect of submission of their refund application for April, 2007 to June, 2007 period on 31-3-2008 does not contain the signature of the receiving persons or that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
