2011 (6) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....many Ceramics Limited, Kadi, filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,76,637/- being 4% additional duty of customs paid in terms of exemption notification No. 107/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. However, they did not produce certain mandatory documents along with refund claim and subsequently the case was adjudicated rejecting the claim of refund on the ground of not fulfilling the condition of notification (sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AD was filed on 04.01.2001 and argued that original adjudicating authority should have decided within three months from the date of filing of refund and it took nearly five months to scrutinise and issue the show cause notice (issued on 18.06.2010). It is argued that because of this non-observance of time-limit, the order in original is improper, incorrect and illegal and in violation of Section 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Para -8 of the judgment has observed very significantly as under:-   8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Sec....