TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner by 30.09.2015. In any case, the application was indeed filed in the office of the Commissioner on 01.10.2015. So far supporting documents are concerned, mere non-filing of the same with the application could not have been taken as fatal to the cause nor the application could have been declined on that ground alone, particularly when such documents/records were also presented on 16.10.2015 i.e., within 15 days of moving the application and well within the period of 30 days, the extent to which the Commissioner has been authorized to condone the delay and to consider the matter on merits. In the totality of circumstances, the respondent has rightly not attempted to justify the order impugned that does not carry the requisite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Financial Year 2014-15, statement of Raw material consumption, Sales Registers for the Financial Year 2014-15, Raw Materials purchase statement and the Auditor s Certificate of the value addition issued by their statutory auditor showing the rate of their value addition as 54.40%, were submitted to this office on 16.10.2015 as is evident from the Commissionerate date- receipt stamp embossed on the Applicant s letter. 6. Notification No. 20/2007 CE dated 25.04.2007 stipulates that- the manufacture may apply to the commissioner of Central excise or the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the manufacturing unit of the manufacturer for fixation of a special rate representing the actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 (as amended) for the Financial Year 2015-16 is accordingly rejected as it is barred by time limit. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact, the requisite application for Special Rate was submitted on 30.09.2015 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong but then, it was noticed that the application ought to have been filed in the Commissioner s office. According to the petitioner, when the steps were taken for filing of the application in the Commissioner s office on 30.09.2015, the Receipt Section had already closed and therefore, the application could be filed only on 01.10.2015. Further, according to the petitioner, the submission of Audited Balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has failed to examine the reasons assigned by the petitioner and has also failed to consider the requirements that ordinarily, the matters are preferred to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. The petitioner had given out all the reasons in a forthright manner wherefor the application could not be filed in the office of the Commissioner by 30.09.2015. In any case, the application was indeed filed in the office of the Commissioner on 01.10.2015. So far supporting documents are concerned, mere non-filing of the same with the application could not have been taken as fatal to the cause nor the application could have been declined on that ground alone, particularly when such documents/records were also presented on 16.10.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
