2019 (11) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has several factories in the country and was registered with the Large Tax Payers unit (LTU) New Delhi under a centralised registration. They realised that they paid excise duty in excess of what was due and filed a refund claim with the LTU New Delhi on 31.03.2010. On 29.04.2010, the LTU New Delhi communicated that the refund application was not in proper form. Subsequent correspondence continued between the appellant and the LTU between 29.04.2010 and 12.01.2011. Thereafter the appellant opted out of the LTU scheme and obtained individual registration for each of their factories in the country. The present case pertains to the registration of their factory in Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh. On 18.3.2011, the applicant received a letter from th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ving the deficiencies. He relies on the decision in the case of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Delhi Vs Araya Exports and Industries [2005(192)ELT 89 (Delhi). He also relies on the decision in the case of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs CCE Chennai [2019-TIOL-2460 CESTAT-Mad]. Hence, their claim is not time barred as the original claim was filed before LTU within time. 6. As far as the contentions of they not being able to submit the relevant documents and calculations being not accurate are concerned, he submits that they will be able to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner by providing necessary invoices and calculation sheets. He submits that since the documents were voluminous they had submitted some sets of docu....