TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese goods are exempt, they filed claims for refund initially with the office of DGFT. The TED was processed and sanctioned by the office of DGFT. As noted earlier, the policy was changed vide notification dated 18.04.2013 of Ministry of Commerce by taking note that these goods were exempt ab initio and will not be eligible for refund of TED. This policy change resulted in return of their claim. The appellants approached the jurisdictional Excise Officer for refund. These refund claims are to be processed necessarily in terms of Section 11 B. The impugned orders examined the legal issue and allowed the claims, which are within time limit and disallowed those claims filed beyond the period stipulated under the said Section. The exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGFT in terms of para 8.3 shall not be dealt by them. Notification no.4(RE) 2013/2009-2014 dated 18.04.2003 was issued by the Ministry of Commerce stating that the supply such type of goods are exempt ab initio and will not be eligible for receipt of refund of TED. The appellants had many claims pending with the DGFT, which were returned to them in December, 2014 in terms of the above changed instructions by the Ministry of Commerce. Thereafter, the appellants approached the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner with these claims for payment. The Original Authority rejected all the claims on the ground of time bar and lack of proper certification from the DG, Hydrocarbon. On appeals filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e competent jurisdictional authority in terms of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In terms of the impugned orders, all the claims, which are filed within the time limit, have been considered and sanctioned. The letter dated 15.03.2013 of JDGFT and the notification dated 18.04.2013 of the Ministry of Commerce only talks about the eligibility for refund of terminal excise duty (TED) hitherto paid by the office of DGFT. These have no bearing on the legally prescribed time limit under Section 11 B of the Act. Regarding appellants plea to consider them as claims for rebate, he submitted that the refund arose on payment of excise duty, which is not payable in view of the exemption available. For claiming such wrong payment of duty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
