TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of service tax paid in respect of inputs services, which have been used during the period April, 2007 to June, 2007 in the manufacture of the export goods, readymade garments and that this credit could not be used by them for payment of duty on clearance for home consumption, for the reason that they are 100% EOU having no DTA clearances. According to the Department, the refund claim for the quarter April, 2007 to June, 2007 was received on 18-2-2009. The appellants were issued show cause notice dated 1-5-2009 proposing rejection of their refund claim as time-barred as while the refund claim was for the April, 2007 to June, 2007 period, and the same as per the records of the Division Office had been received by the Asstt. Commissioner on 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cations, etc. only by putting a dated stamp and without signature of the receiving persons. In this regard, the Tribunal's directions are reproduced below :- "4. It is claimed that letters addressed or refund claims addressed to the Divisional Officer is being acknowledged by affixing the date stamp without affixing the signature of the receipient of such letters/refund claims. The practice is widely prevalent. 5. In this particular case, it is claimed that they filed the application on 31-3-2008 claiming refund for the period April to June, 2007 which was acknowledged in the above manner, that the original application was reportedly misplaced by the Department and again they were asked to submit copy of the application whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1.4 Today, at the time of hearing, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted report dated 20-10-2010 of the Commissioner, which is reproduced as under : - "This is in supersession of this office letter even no. 9746 dated 29-9-10 addressed to Departmental Representative. Please refer to Tribunal's Misc. Order No. 190/2010/SM dated 22-7-2010 in Appeal No. 611/2010-SM (BR) in case of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III. In this regard, it is mentioned that the practice followed by the office of Central Excise Division-III, Gurgaon, was that on receipt of documents by party a dated stamp without signature was put on the party's copy and immediately documents were registered in the inward regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was no entry regarding this refund claim. 2. Heard both sides. 2.1 Shri A.K. Jain, General Manager of the appellant company representing the appellant pleaded that refund claim for April, 2007 to June, 2007 period had been filed well in time i.e. 31-3-2008 and had been acknowledged by putting the Divisional officers' stamp with date but without any signature of the receiving person on Appellant's copy, that this was the practice in the Divisional Office of acknowledging the letters received from the assessees as well as the refund claims filed by them, that the refund claims filed for the previous period as well as later period have also been acknowledged in the same manner, that when after submitting of the refund claim to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appellants refund application had, indeed, been received in the Divisional Office on 31-3-2008, that the Commissioner in his report also stated that the receipt register as well as file opening register of the Division Office have been checked and the appellant's refund claim for an amount of Rs. 8,77,995/- claimed to have been submitted on 31-3-2008, is not figuring in the receipt register or in the file opening register, that from this, it is clear that the refund claim had not been submitted on 31-3-2008 and had been submitted on 18-2-2009 and hence the same had been rightly rejected as time-barred. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. The appellant's plea is that....