2024 (9) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S. No. Appeal No. Period Rebate filed on SCN  No. & Date OIO  No. & Date Rebate amount claimed.   (in INR)  1.  40068/2023 July 2012 to September 2012 28.06.2013 SCN No.15/2014 dated 06.05.2014 OIO  No. 04/2015 dated 29.05.2015   17,94,399/- 2.  40069/2023 October 2012  to December 2012 30.09.2013 SCN No.17/2014 dated 06.05.2014 OIO  No. 05/2015 dated 29.05.2015   28,46,010/- 3.  40070/2023 January 2013  to March 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocks manufactured by the appellant were directly exported from the Quarry without getting processed from the premises of the EOU.   2.2. The Notices also proposed rejection of the rebate claims on the ground that the appellant has not produced documents such as original invoices, Self certification on input service, FIRC/BRC copies.  In respect of the claim filed for the period July 2012 to September 2012, the claim was also proposed to be rejected on the ground of time bar, as the claim was filed beyond 1 year from the date of export. 3. The Notices were adjudicated by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner who rejected all the 5 rebate claims filed by the appellant.  On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in one of the rebate claims for the period of July 2012 to September 2012, she submits that they have originally filed the claim on 28.06.2013, but it was returned and re-presented on 13.09.2013.  As they have submitted the original claim within the period of 1 year from the date of export, there is no time bar in filing the said rebate claim. Accordingly, she prayed for allowing all the rebate claims filed by them. 6. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.  7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 8. I find that the appellant has filed five rebate claims under notification No.41/2012 dated 20.09.2012. From the details of the claim available on record, I find that the appellant has claimed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ertification on input services, FRIC/BRC copies etc.,  the appellant submits that they have furnished all original documents before the appropriate authority along with the rebate claims.  However, these documents were not examined by the proper officer and the rebate claims were rejected on the ground that they have not fulfilled the condition of Notification 51/2003 and 21/2003. It is the submission of the appellant that they will be able to explain before the proper officer that all the documents required for the purpose of processing the rebate claims were furnished .I observe that the appellant has to explain before the authorities that they have furnished all documents required for processing the rebate claims. For this purp....