TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant date is to be taken as given at B (a) to the explanation of Section 11B of the Act. Govt. is of the considered opinion that in the instant case time limit should be computed from the date on which refund/rebate claim was initially filed and not from the date on which rebate claim after removing defects was submitted. Govt, accordingly, remands the case back to the original authority for passing de novo order for taking into account initial date of filing the rebate for the purpose of limitation u/s 11B of the Act and following principle of natural justice. The Revision Application is disposed of in above terms. - SHRI DINESH KACKER, JOINT SECRETARY Shri M.H. Patil, Ms. Aparna H., Advocates and M.E. Lakha, Dy. Manager, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the applicant made following main pleadings :- (i) That the applicants had executed a General Surety bond under Rules 9B, 13, 14 and 92, for seeking the provisional assessment under Rule 9B on 9-12-1986 which was duly accepted by the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Divn.-F-II, vide letter No. V/B-16/5-IOC-31/86, dt. 17-8-1987. The goods were cleared under provisional assessment under Rule 9B as evidenced from B-16, bond which covered provisional assessement under Rule 9B also. (ii) That the impugned claims have been rejected only on the ground that they were time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this connection the applicants submit that these claims are governed by the provisions of Rule 12 of erstw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original and the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 8.2. Govt, notes that as per facts on record that applicants have filed their rebate claims in respect of 105 AR4/ARE-l s for the period from 26-10-1998 to 8-4-2002 on 18-4-2002. However, some discrepancies were noticed as mentioned in the Order-in-Original and the defects pointed out were removed by the applicants on 7-1-2003. The lower authority took the date of filing rebate as 7-1-2003 and by that time the rebate claims filed by the applicants was beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8.3. Govt. notes that it is case of rebate and rebate claim is to be dealt with as per the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al allowed. Sections 3A and 27 of Customs Act, 1962. 8.4. Govt. feels that facts of instant case are identical/similar to the facts of the above cited judgments and squarely applicable in the case of the applicants. Govt. therefore, is of the considered opinion that in the instant case also time limit should be computed from the date on which refund/rebate claim was initially filed and not from the date on which rebate claim after removing defects was submitted. Govt, accordingly, remands the case back to the original authority for passing de novo order for taking into account initial date of filing the rebate for the purpose of limitation u/s 11B of the Act and following principle of natural justice. 9. The Revision Application is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
