TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In similar situation this Tribunal in the case of B.S.L. Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the refund under Rule 5 is permissible despite the claim having been second time in a month which is violation of condition of 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1/3/2002. In my view this was held keeping in mind that though there is procedure to file one refund in a month or in the quarter as case may be but since time limit of one year is prescribed for filing refund claim the said procedure infraction should not come in way of the substantial claim of the assessee. Decided in favour of appellant. - Appeal No. C/86401/14-MUM - Final Order No. A/96/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 23-12-2014 - Ramesh Nair,JJ. For the Appellant : Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 06/2008-Customs dated 28.04.2008 vide impugned Order dated 07.06.2013. Relevant portion of para 4.2 of the said Circular are as under: ....There would be a single refund claim in respect of one importer in a month irrespective of the number of Bills of Entry (B/Es) processed by the respective Commission rate 7. I find that the impugned refund claim will not enrich the appellant unjustly. The appellant was aware of the procedure of filing refund claim and also of the fact that only single claim per month was permissible as per the said Board Circular. The contention of the appellant that the claim would have been time barred does not hold goods as the information was always there in the domain of the appellant. The appellant coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in case of[{2008(226) E.L.T. 359 (Tri-Del)] B.S.L. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur. 3. On the other hand, Shri M.K. Mall, Ld. Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the Board Circular stipulates that only one refund claim should be filed in a month and since the appellant has filed more than one i.e. 6/5/2013 and 24/5/2013, accordingly they have violated procedure laid down in para 4.2 of the Board Circular, therefore they are not entitled for the refund in respect of second claim. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. 5. The original authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 6/5/2013. As regard the quantity of the present claim it was sold during the period 12/05/2013-20/05/2013. If the contention of the ld. lower authority is accepted and if the appellant is barred in filing the present refund claim in the month of May 2013 then option is that they should have filed this claim in the month of Jun 2013. It is observed from the date of challan towards payment of duty, both the payments were made on 26/05/2012 and 01/6/2012. If the appellant would have filed both the refund claim in the month of Jun 2013 then statutory time limit of one would have expired and they become ineligible for this claim. In the Board Circular also consciously, understanding this situation, clarified that the exception is provided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
