2006 (3) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Final Order No. 112-CE/BPL/2003, dated 24-4-2003, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants cleared excisable goods during the period from September, 1999 to N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Enzo Chem Laboratories P. Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (113) E.L.T. 303 (T)]. It was further found that the claim is barred by time. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the view of the Original authority and upheld the rejection of the refund claim. The Appellants strongly challenged the findings of the lower authority. Hence they have come before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he date on which the goods passed the Indian frontiers. As per Section 11B(1), the relevant duty in respect of the goods exported is the date on which the goods crossed the Indian frontiers. A time-limit of one year from the relevant date is there for filing the claim. In the present case, the relevant date is 25-10-2000 and rebate claim was filed on 29-6-2001. Thus the claim was filed within time....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9) E.L.T. 548], the CEGAT held that so long as the goods have been brought back into factory for re-processing and intimation was given to the Department, the assessee is entitled to claim refund under Rule 173L. 4. The learned SDR pointed out that even though on merits, the appellant is entitled for refund, the same cannot be granted in view of the time bar. He said that originally duty w....