2008 (10) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udhary, Adv. For the Respondents: Vinay Zelawat, Asstt. Solicitor General and Tuganawat, Adv. Judgment 1. This is an appeal filed by Assessee under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order dated 21-4-2004 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal) in E/Appeal/No. 3715/2003-NB(c) which in turn arise out of an Order-in-Appeal No. 377/03 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y-Assistant Commissioner under Clause 6 of appendix to notification issued under Rule 57F which provides for refund of Modvat credit allowed on inputs and used in goods exported under Bond. The appellant claimed this refund of credit which was lying in their R.G.-23A Part II. It is this application, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 30-12-99 as being barred by limitat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs impugned herein. 5. In our considered view, the authorities concern erred in rejecting the application made by appellant (Assessee) on the ground of limitation. It should have been held to be in time. 6. It is not in dispute that claim for the quarter October, 98 to December 98 was made on 27-7-99 by invoking Clause 6 of Appendix to notification issued under Rule 57F. In our view, the str....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... paid on inputs. 7. In our opinion, merely because the refund application was not filed strictly within 6 months before expiry of period specified in Clause 6 of Appendix read with Section 11B ibid but was filed late by 27 days could not have been made the sole ground for the rejection of application as barred by limitation. Infact, the claim in question did not fall strictly within the forecor....