2000 (8) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decide. 3. Heard both sides in the matter and perused the records. We notice that the issue lies in a very narrow compass and the appeal can be taken up for disposal and hence the miscellaneous application is allowed and the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 4. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim solely on the ground that the Refund Application has been filed beyond the stipulated time limit for filing the claim under the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellants contends that they had filed the refund claim on 14-11-1995 which had been received in Appraising Refund section and the appellants issued with the stamped acknowledgement. There is no dispute by the original authority on the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his case also. The ld. Counsel further relied on the case C.C.E. v. Jayshree Chemicals Ltd. - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 625 to wherein it was held that the refund claim have been filed before the Section Officer instead of filing it to the Assistant Commissioner was held to be proper and the Tribunal directed the case to be decided on merits. The ld. Counsel further relied on the final order No. 625/2000 dated 9-5-2000 wherein also the refund claim filed before the Appraising Refund section was held to be a proper filing and the issue being the same. He prays for the decision on merits. 4. Opposing the prayer by Sh. S. Kannan, ld. DR submits that the section 27 of the Customs Act is very clear as it lays down that the application of refund is ....