2013 (1) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant herein filed four refund claims on 31.10.08, 30.01.09, 31.08.09 & 30.11.09. The said refund claims were partly allowed by the adjudicating authority and partly rejected. Against the rejection of such claim, the appellant preferred the appeal before the first appellate authority who vide orders in appeal dated 12th & 18th February 2011 allowed appeals and sanctioned the refund. Based upon such a decision of the first appellate authority, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claims to the appellant. The appellant thereafter sought interest from the authorities under the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which was turned down on the ground that the amounts have been refunded within three months....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed consultant had shown lorry receipts by the transporter and I find that the lorry receipts issued by the transporter, the invoice number issued by the exporter, the port to which the goods were retrained and the value ill US$ has been indicated. It is not known what documents were verified by the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). On the one hand it is the claim of the appellant that all the lorry receipts contain the relevant details where as the facts as found by the lower authorities are entirely different. It was submitted that even though photocopies were shown and enclosed to the appeal memorandum, original documents have been submitted to the department. I would like the original adjudicating authority ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....liners were not these services but some other service which is not eligible for refund. Another ground taken for rejecting the refund claim is limitation. In this case the claim has been rejected on the ground that from the relevant date namely date of ARE-I, the refund claim was time barred. However, I find the notification itself provides clearly that the relevant date for determination of limitation is the date on which proper officer of Customs makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation. Therefore the finding that the claim is time barred because it is filed beyond the period when counted from the date of ARE-1 is appears to be against the provisions Notification No 4l/07-ST dated 06.10.07. This aspe....