2006 (3) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....003, 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 November 1999 in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of duty. Subsequently, these goods were brought back to the factory on 26-28^th February 2000 under D-3 intimation. Later, the goods w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (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 the Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri Venkatesh, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. The learned A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 from the relevant date. (iii) The decision of the CEGAT in the case of Enzo Chem Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 1999 (113) ELT 303 (T) relied on by the lower authority was subsequently held to be per incuriam by CEGAT in the case of Relaxo Interna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 was paid during September 1999 to November 1999 but the refund claim was filed only on 26.6.2001. Hence, the claim is clearly time bar. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The fact that the goods which were cleared....