2017 (5) TMI 937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al against the Order-in-Appeal No. 503/2014 dated 23.4.2014 whereunder the rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the appellant filed two claims in one month, has been sustained. 2. Both sides represented by ld. Counsels, Shri S.S. Dabas and Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar have been heard. 3. The Revenue's main objection against sanction of the refund claim is that para 4.2 of Circular No. 6/2008 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e contended that the appellant has violated the condition laid down in the para 4.2 of the C.B.E. & C. Board Circular, which is reproduced below :- 4.2. It is also clarified that only a single claim against a particular Bill of Entry should be permitted to be filed within the maximum time period of one year. Filing of refund claim for a part quantity in a bill of entry shall not be allowed excep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... present case that the first claim was filed on 6-5-2013 for the quantity of goods sold. However the quantity covered under the present refund claim were unsold therefore, these two bills of entry could not have been included in the first claim which was made on 6-5-2013. As regard the quantity of the present claim it was sold during the period 12-5-2013-20-5-2013. If the contention of the ld. low .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowed to file more than one refund claim in a month. In my view even if more than one claim in a month is filed the same cannot be denied only because of the reason that circular prescribed only one refund claim in a month otherwise statutory time limit of one year provided in the notification will become redundant. In similar situation this Tribunal in the case of B.S.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prescribed by the Revenue restricting the claim to one in a month for the present facts appears to be only a procedural impediment which cannot come in a way to grant the refund to the appellant. Consequently, following the Tribunal decisions (supra), the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
Case laws, Decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X