AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....No.VIII/20/02/2013-Tech dt. 28.1.2013 and requested the appellant to file the refund claim again and returned the original C.A. certificate to the appellant. The appellant submitted a reply dt. 28.11.2013 and re-submitted the claim on 09.10.2014. Finally, the adjudicating authority vide OIO No.3/2015 dt. 26.1.2015 dismissed the refund claim as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the OIO and rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the appellant-assessee. 2. Shri Padmanabhan, Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant-company submits that relevant documents as required were filed before the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Karaikkal on 22.4.2012 and acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills who in turn supply to us bagasse for use in the manufacture of paper. Appellant have taken CENVAT credit only for the goods used in our factory in the statutory register maintained as per CE rules in our factory and for the coal supplied to others, and have not taken CENVAT credit; that for all the coal consignments imported previously for claiming refund, whenever due based on the finalization of provisional assessment, the appellant was only submitting Charted Accountant certificate to rule out unjust enrichment; that the statutory auditor of the company has given the certificate stating the incidence of duty was not passed after verifying connected documents and it is a valid certificate to rule out the unjust enrichment; that in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requisite documents were lacking and finally the claim was filed on 9.10.2014, which should be the date to be reckoned as the date of filing of the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 27, the claim was barred by limitation. Hence it was rejected. 4. Ld. counsel in his rejoinder submitted that the facts involved in the Apex court judgement in the case of UOI Vs Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) are not applicable to the facts of this case and the requirement of Cost Accountant certificate is no where mentioned in the statute. The said Apex Court's judgement does not stipulate that Cost Accountant's certificate should be produced for ruling out unjust enri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lment of cenvat credit and documents required to prove non-applicability of unjust enrichment and detailed worksheet showing cost of construction for the material period when the materials were used. 7. The point to be noted here is that the appellant had filed refund claim dt.11.1.2013 on 23.1.2013. A claim for refund which is wanting certain documents and particulars cannot be a reason to hold that the claim was not filed within time. The conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant had filed the refund claim only on 17.9.2014 which was received in this case on 9.10.2014 is based on OIO No.92/2012 dt. 30.2.2012 and has been filed beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of issue of the OIO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents filed along with the rebate claim application had been returned to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the rebate claim application had not been filed on 5-11-2007. In fact, the second respondent had retained the application for rebate of duty, in Form C. It is also noted that the final confirmation of the date of shipment was made only on 23-12-2008, due to the delay by the Shipping Corporation of India Limited. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rebate claim had been made by the petitioner, belatedly, beyond the period of limitation prescribed, under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the first respondent, dated 30-4-2012. Co....