9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of Home furnishings falling under Chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,77,015/- with the adjudicating authority in accordance with the provision of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of unutilized cenvat credit availed by him on inputs/input services during the period from 1-6-04 to 16-6-04 used in the manufacture of finished goods which were exported under the relevant Bills of Lading dated 10-7-04 to 19-7-04. The adjudicating authority vide his above order dated 19-6-08 sanctioned the cash refund of Rs. 2,77,015/- to the respondents. 4. Aggrieved with the said refund claim, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents were required to resubmit their above refund application alongwith the certain documents viz final proof of shipment of goods/certificate by the customs authorities on the back of ARE-I. The claim alongwith requisite documents as aforesaid was resubmitted to the Deputy Commissioner by the respondents vide their letter dated 28-2-2005. The perusal of the Deputy Commissioner's above letter dated 13-1-05 and the respondent's letter dated 28-2-05 (acknowledged by the department on 9-3-05) reveal that date of receipt of the said refund claim is 31-12-04. Further with regard to the said refund claim of Rs. 2,77,015/-, the table given in the said letter dated 13-1-05 of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division III Noida clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken into consideration. That the Revenue accepts that the original refund claim was filed in the Division office on 30-1-04 but their contention is that the same only bears initial of some person without any mention of name or designation of the said person nor it has stamp of Division office. As such, they cannot be held that the refund claim bears the acknowledgment of the Division. 9. I find no merits in the above contention. The letter dated 13-1-05 written by Deputy Commissioner requiring the respondents to resubmit refund application alongwith relevant documents is not being doubted by the revenue in the Memo of appeal. The said letter refers to refund claimed on 13-1-04. If that be so, the genuineness of the refund claim f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
