TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 8.6.2012 has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation - Held that:- Admittedly, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division is the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of the appellant and by treating the same as proper officer, the appellant had filed the application before him. If the said Deputy Commissioner was not competent to pass the refund claim, he should not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings were initiated against the appellant resulting in confiscation of the goods with redemption fine and imposition of penalties. On appeal, the said confiscation and penalties were set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 30.5.2011. As a result the appellant became entitled to the refund of the fine and penalty deposited by them. 2. Accordingly, they filed refund application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was returned to him with the direction to file it before the proper officer. The question is as to whether the application filed well within time is required to be considered for the purposes of the refund, though filed before a wrong officer or as to whether the subsequent refund application filed on 8.6.2012 has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. Admittedly, Deputy C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I find that the initial application dated 9.1.2012 has to be taken as the proper application for the purpose of limitation. This is so also on the ground that Deputy Commissioner, Ghaziabad, instead of returning the said application, could have forwarded the same to the concerned Deputy Commissioner for action at his end. 6. At this stage, I also take note of the Tribunals decision in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
