2004 (3) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... able to lay his hands on any further case law on this subject. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, learned Advocate for the respondents takes a preliminary objection that the present appeal has been authorised to be filed by the Applicant Commissioner Shri Jeet Ram Kait against the order-in-appeal which was passed by none other than himself earlier as Commissioner (Appeals). He cites the decision in the case of CCE v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 667 (Tri.) wherein it is held that the Member of the Board cannot review an order passed by him in his earlier capacity as Collector unless new facts or material has been rendered which would have made the order illegal or imp-roper. Shri Modh states that though the said decision of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rding to para 6 of the Appendix to this Notification, the application for refund has to be lodged before expiry of limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944." 3. Shri Bhagat, further states that under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Explanation (B) makes it clear that the relevant date in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of excise duty paid is available in respect of the goods themselves or, as the case may be, the excisable material used in the manufacture of such goods, the relevant date shall be the date on which the ship on which such goods are loaded leaves India. Shri Bhagat states that in view of such clear provisions and in view of the fact that in the case of all the ....