TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/219/2008 - FO/A/76106/2018 - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) NONE for the Appellant (s) Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per CORAM. None appears on behalf of the appellant despite issue of notice. On perusal of records, we find that in the earlier occasions also, nobody turned up on behalf of the appellant. Hence, we proceed to dispose the matter. 2. Heard the Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tea including tea waste classifiable under Chapter 9 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration would be whether there is no time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. and whether such refund claims should be given suo motu by the department even if not claimed by a statement. In the present appeals only eligibility of more than 25% exemption as per clause 3(b) has not been challenged by the adjudicating authority and Revenue also did not file any appeal against the orders of the adjudicating authority. However, we are of the considered opinion that eligibility under clause 3(b) of Notification No. 33/99-C.E. does not mean that refund claim/statements can be filed after any length of time. For this purpose such refund claim/statements as prescribed in Clause 2(a), are required to be filed by the 7th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have been a reasonable cause for delay in filing refund claims/statements. There is no confusion in the provisions contained in Clause 3(b) of the exemption notification that substantial expansion of 25% should be by installing brand new machinery only. There was thus no justifiable reason to file substantial expansion applications after 5-6 years of the actual expansion done and seek retrospective refund claims. In view of the above, it is held that specific time limits have been prescribed under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. for filing a refund statements under Clause 2(a). This statement could be a specific statement under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. or a RT-12 Return but such statement should have a claim for refund of duty paid throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
