2017 (7) TMI 1030

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The fact of the case is that the appellants against the export of goods filed a refund claim under Rule 5 and notification issued thereunder within one year from the end of each quarter for which the refund pertains. The adjudicating authority rejected the part of the claim on the ground that the appellants have filed refund claim after o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter solely on the basis of the Tribunal's decision in GTN Engineering (supra) whereas this Tribunal order was reversed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering - 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad). Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is not sustainable. 3. On the other hand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the refund under Rule 5 is not governed by the provisions of Section 11B, therefore, even if the refund is filed after one year, the same cannot be rejected on time bar following the decision of this Tribunal in GTN Engineering(supra). I disagree with this finding of the Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case, since all the refund were filed within one year from the date immediately after completion of a quarter, even as per the provisions of 11B the refund claims are within time limit. For this reason the refund is not liable to be rejected on time bar. This very same issue has been considered in the case of Ocean Connect India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal has passed the following orde....