TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 1813/1-7-2009. So he cannot argue that the said claims are still pending. Applicant was aware of the rejection of claims and the supplementary claim was required to be filed under Rule 15 in time. Further, they admitted that they were advised by the department to file supplementary claim, which they filed only on 25-1-2011 i.e. after lapse of more than 18 months. As such, the supplementary claims filed after lapse of stipulated time limit of 3 months were rightly rejected as time-barred. It has been also pointed out by the department that the applicant by suppressing the fact that their earlier supplementary claims were already rejected, filed fresh supplementary claim on 7-5-2012. This action on the part of the applicant is an attempt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wback quantity was greater than the item quantity. The applicants filed their two supplementary claims both dated 7-1-2011. The lower authority rejected the said supplementary claims as time-barred. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable because of the reasons that there is no necessity to file the supplementary claim because their original claim itself is yet to be disposed off; that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-barred. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government noted that revision application is filed on 2-1-2013 against Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2012, dated 31-8-2012 claimed to be received by applicant on 5-9-2012. The Revision Application was required to be filed by 4-12-2012 as per time limit laid down by Section 129DD(2) of Customs Act, 1962. As such it is filed with a delay of 28 days. Applicant stated that they were under the impression that appeal is to be filed before CESTAT. But at the last moment they came to know that Revision Application is to be filed before the Central Government. Due to re-drafting of application/appeal, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o query as pointed out by the department and non-compliance of the same rendered their claim liable for rejection. The applicant themselves stated that claims filed in EDI system were zeroed vide the scroll number dated 1812/23-6-2009 and 1813/1-7-2009. So he cannot argue that the said claims are still pending. Applicant was aware of the rejection of claims and the supplementary claim was required to be filed under Rule 15 in time. Further, they admitted that they were advised by the department to file supplementary claim, which they filed only on 25-1-2011 i.e. after lapse of more than 18 months. As such, the supplementary claims filed after lapse of stipulated time limit of 3 months were rightly rejected as time-barred. It has been also p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
