TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of a Central Excise Division and after having accepted this fact a technical stand of no communication from the Department cannot be resorted to. A verbal communication from a public authority like Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of a division with regards to withdrawal of rebate claim is as good as written communication and if a person from the public has acted as per such communication it is bound to be regarded at the behest of the Department. Such fair dealing should also be maintained for the sake of administrative decency and morality. Government is of the clear view that the applicant does not have any basis to discard the fact of original filing of Rebate Claim on 30-9-2013 and it fully agrees with the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-10-2012 and 11-10-2012 as time barred. But on their appeal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the impugned order. 4. The applicant has filed the above revision application against the Commissioner (Appeals) s order mainly on the ground that the re-submission of Rebate Claim on 11th October, 2013 is not in continuation of their original Rebate Claim filed on 26 September, 2013 since it is filed after one year of the export of goods and, therefore, the setting aside of the order in Original No. 02/ACF/JSR-DIV-IV/C.EX/14, dated 15-4-2013 by the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous. Whereas the respondent has claimed that they had filed their claim on 30-9-2013 itself which is with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -10-2013 whereby the Rebate Claim was resubmitted and in the said letter a reference to their earlier letter, dated 8-10-2013 is given which talked of withdrawal of the initial Rebate Claim as per their discussion with the Deputy Commissioner. On the basis of these two letters, the Commissioner (Appeal) has categorically observed in para 4 of his order that the appellant had initially filed Rebate Claim on 30-9-2013, later on resubmitted the same on 11-10-2013 as per verbal discussion and direction from the Department and accordingly the relevant date for filing the claim is 30-9-2013. This fact of withdrawal of the Rebate Claim as per discussion with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is not denied by the applicant also in Revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of the Department. Such fair dealing should also be maintained for the sake of administrative decency and morality. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances in this case, Government is of the clear view that the applicant does not have any basis to discard the fact of original filing of Rebate Claim on 30-9-2013 and it fully agrees with the Commissioner (Appeals) that resubmission of the claim on 11-10-2013 is in continuation of the original Rebate Claim only and hence the rebate claims filed by the respondent are not time barred. 9. The following decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the respondent in their reply in this matter also support the above view. (a) Goodyear India Ltd. v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
