TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s already cleared and paid proper duty on such supplementary invoices. In the case of reduction of price, they have already paid excess duty of Rs. 33,51,793.00, filed a refund claim on 12.04.2010. The Superintendent of Central Excise, returned the refund claim due to lack of certain documents. The assessee re-submitted the refund claim on 29.09.2010. Subsequently, by letter dt.25.10.2010, the Appellant requested to withdraw the refund claim of Rs. 6,47,473.00 as they had no documentary evidence and requested to sanction the remaining amount of Rs. 27,04,323.00. 2. A show cause notice dt.04.11.2010 was issued, proposing to reject the refund claim of Rs. 33,51,796.00 filed on 29.09.2010 for the period June 2009 to March 2010 as time barred.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und claim with all the documents as directed by the Range Officer. The Tribunal in the case of Indra Processors Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Jallandhar - 2009 (236) ELT 164 (Tri-Del) held that resubmission of refund claim was at the instance of Central Excise officers and therefore, the date of filing of refund claim would be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. I find that the assessee filed refund claim within the stipulated period. On perusal of the letter dt.29.04.2010 of the Range Officer, it is seen that the Range Officer returned the papers on the ground that it is not possible to process to refund claim in the absence of the documents as mentioned therein and the assessee was directed to do the needful. Hence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... several decisions of the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. MIL India Ltd. - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 188 (S.C.) to support the view that the Commissioner has no power to remand. After considering all these decisions, I find that in the case of M/s. MIL India, the main issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section. It cannot be said that Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law in that case. Whereas in the case of M/s. Medico Lab, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was dealing with the issue of remand only and after considering the issue....