TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the limit period of one year stipulated in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Government is of considered view that case is required to be remanded back for denovo consideration, for deciding the case on merits. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse. - 195/627/11-RA - 226/14-cx - Dated:- 1-5-2014 - Sh. D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary ORDER This Revision Application is filed by M/s Oleofine Organics India (Pvt.) Ltd., Thane against the Order-in-Appeal No.SB(213-214)Th-I/10 dated 10.10.10 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I with respect of Order-in-Original No.1042/09-10 1044/09-10 both dated 7.12.09 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) of Central Excise, Kalyan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the various submissions made in their appeals and without considering the various decisions so referred and relied upon by them. 4.2 The Applicants humbly submit that they had submitted their rebate claim on 13.8.2007 31/03/2008 and certain supporting documents under letters dtd 22.4.2007 09/06/2008. There has been no communication from the office of the Assistant Commissioner i.e. the Rebate Sanctioning Authority during the said period nor there is any communication before rejecting Applicants rebate claim under impugned orders-in-original No.R-1042/09-10 No.R-1044/09-10 both dtd 07/12/2009. The rebate claim of the Applicants has been rejected without issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2008 along with all the available documents referred in the statement of fact was filed to safeguard the time period of limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In fact in the letter they had clarified that all documents are submitted except the original and duplicate ARE-1 and duplicate excise invoice which would be submitted on receipt of Custom Authority. Under such circumstances the rebate claim has to be considered as filed on 13.8.2007 31/03/2008 and the impugned orders holding to the contrary deserve to be quashed. 5. Personal hearing in this case on 11.4.14 at Mumbai was attended by Shri Vinay S.Sejjal, Advocate on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the available documents on 13.8.2007 and 20.4.2007 and the balance document on receipt from the Customs Authority. On perusal of the Order-in-Original No. 41/2008/ADC(MS) dated 28.4.2008, passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Seva, it speaks about the fine, penalty and the export promotion copy of the shipping bill no.4529310 dated 19.8.2006 shall be issued, after necessary amendments. But, nowhere speaks about the withholding of the Original and duplicate copy of ARE-1. Further, the order was passed on 28.4.2008 and all the required mandatory documents were filed on 22.5.2009, i.e. after the expiry of one year in terms of Section 118 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. Government notes that the rebate claims are init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emaining defects was submitted section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of above, the said rebate claims cannot be treated as time barred since it was originally filed before department well within the limit period of one year stipulated in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Government is of considered view that case is required to be remanded back for denovo consideration, for deciding the case on merits. 11. In view of above circumstances, Government sets aside the impugned orders and remands the case back to original authority for deciding the case matter afresh taking into account the above said observations. A reasonable opportunity of hearing will be given to both the parties before deciding the case. 12. Revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
