2017 (1) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate, For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan, AR, For the Respondent Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.8.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the appeal of the appellant was rejected and Order-in-Original was upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and is engaged in the manufacture of export of silk....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 26.4.2013 rejected the refund on the ground that the said refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as it could be seen that the 'LET Export' orders was between 5.10.2011 and 29.12.2011 for the exports made by the appellant during the period of claim. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....India. He further submitted that there were several 'LET Export' dates starting from 5.10.2011 to 30.12.2011 but the learned Commissioner (A) has erroneously considered only the first 'LET Export' date i.e., 4.10.2011 as the relevant date for the entire period of claim and not the last 'LET Export' date. If the last 'LET export' date i.e., 30.12.2011 is considered as the relevant date, the claim i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1,31,942/- is very much within the time period as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly interpreted the re....