TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the refund claim in case where the original refund claim under Rule 5 filed is returned pointing deficiencies and the refund is refilled will be the date of filing the original claim. Thus, the date of filing the original claim should be considered for the purpose of reckoning the limitation - the refund claim filed by the appellant is within the period of limitation. The appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief of interest on delayed refund. - E/20304/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20367/2019 - Dated:- 26-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. P. Raghunathan, Consultant For the Appellant Mr. Kanipakam Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.09.2015 on the ground that revised re-submitted claim on 11.08.2014 is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and secondly the appellant had claimed the drawback at All Industry Rates on the Automobile seat covers exported by them, therefore they are not entitled for the refund of accumulated cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and thirdly the conditions for maintainability of the refund claim under Notification 27/2012 dated 27.06.2012 has not been fulfilled by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner has wrongly rejected the refund claim on limitation. Further th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the refund claim filed by the appellants are well within the time prescribed by law and not hit by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on limitation and remanded the case back to the original authority to decide the issue of limitation whereas the original authority in the earlier Order-in-Original has also rejected the claim on time-bar and on remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of C. Ex. S.T., Vadodara 2016 (42) S.T.R. 535 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 3.1. He further submits that the appellant is also entitled to interest on delayed sanction of refund after the expiry of three months from the date of filing of the refund application in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decision of the Tribunal and the High Court that the date of submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
