TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund claim in proper form was filed by the appellant on 23.02.2013. As find that the appellant's plea that their communication dated 19.09.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, in connection with the recovery proceedings of arrears cannot be accepted. Firstly, such fax communication dated 19.09.2011 could not be placed on record by the appellant for examination of the contents. Secondly, the Original Authority had given a factual finding as to whether the said communication can be treated as a valid document for determining the relevant date. He recorded that the said communication deals with recovery of outstanding arrears and also mentions about amount of ₹ 2,58,025/- due to the appellant. It is also to be note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to reject the refund claim of ₹ 2,58,025/ filed on 23.03.2013 on the ground of time bar. The Original Authority vide his order dated 31.05.2013 rejected the claim as time bar. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his impugned order upheld the said rejection of refund on the ground of time bar. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order-in-appeal dated 3.5.2011 dropped the demand of ₹ 2,58,025/- and as such, the present claim is consequential one. He further submits that they have sent a fax on 19.09.2011 staking their claim for refund of this amount and that the communication should be treated as a claim and as such, the refund should be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant date. He recorded that the said communication deals with recovery of outstanding arrears and also mentions about amount of ₹ 2,58,025/- due to the appellant. It is also to be noted that immediately on receipt of communication dated 19.09.2011, the Dy. Commissioner informed the appellant to file a claim as per procedure and, if necessary, may seek guidance of jurisdictional Range Officers. Even after receipt of such communication, the appellant did not file any claim for refund though they had much more than six months time before the time limit. The claim was filed only on 23.02.2013. 5. Considering the above factual position, I find that the lower authorities' concurrent findings cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
