Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. STP Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , JNCH, Nhava Sheva

2016 (3) TMI 467 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Rejection of refund claim - Period of limitation - Appellant submitted and acknowledged refund claim on 30.9.2010 and thereafter they made correspondence with the department and recasted refund was again submitted on 15/2/2012 - Revenue contended that in the register there is no entry in the name of the importer towards filing the claim on 30/9/2010, therfore refund claim filed by the importer is time- barred - Held that:- from the copy of acknowledgement no doubt can be raised that the said ack .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has to be accepted as proof of filing the refund claim. Therefore, acknowledgement submitted by the appellant should be taken as proof of filing refund claim and if that is so, it is well within stipulated time period and should not be rejected as time barred. - Matter remanded back - Appeal No. ST/87880/13 - Dated:- 3-8-2015 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri C.M. Sharma, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri S.J. Sahu, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) ORDER PER : RAMESH NA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er dated 29/9/2010 in respect of various Bills of Entry filed during 23/9/2009 to 31/10/2009. Refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating authority vide his order-in-original dated 26/4/2012 on the ground of time bar. The Adjudicating authority in his order in original contended that claim of the appellant that the refund claim was filed on 30/9/2010 and acknowledgement thereof is not proper for the reason that it is general practice that all the refund filed get file number and the same is en .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd could not be treated correct. He therefore concluded that in this circumstances submission of refund filed on 30/9/2010 in the department has not been proved. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who has rejected the appeal of the appellant, therefore appellant is before me. 3. Shri. C.M. Sharma, Ld Consultant submits that there is no doubt that the refund claim was submitted and acknowledged on 30/9/2010 thereafter there were correspon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and acknowledged on 30/9/2010 is incorrect. He submits that there is clear rubber stamp and signature of the person, who received the refund claim in the custom department. For assessee nothing more can be obtained from the department as regard acknowledgement of submission of refund claim. It is department who failed or not recorded the receipt of the refund claim in their records. For in-action of the departmental staff, appellant could not be made sufferer. He, therefore, prays that evidence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version