Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
G.D. Overseas vs Cce & St, Panchkula on 17 April, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017
COURT NO. I
Appeal No. ST/820/2010
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 23/S-TAX/CE/D-II/2010 Dt. 27.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-II.]
Date of hearing/decision: 17.04.2017
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
========================================
G.D. Overseas.
Appellant(s) VS CCE & ST, Panchkula.
:
Respondent(s) ======================================== Appearance:
Sh. Girish Aneja, CA for the Appellant(s) Sh. V. Gupta, AR for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ORDER NO. 60640/2017 Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The refund claim filed the by appellants has been rejected as time barred under Notification 41/2007 on the ground that refund claim has been filed beyond 60 days as per the prescribed time in the notification.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. Considering the fact that as per the Notification No. 17/2009 dt. 12.03.2009, the time period for filing the refund was extended to one year from the date of export. Admittedly, the appellant has filed refund claim within time limit prescribed as per the said notification. In view of that I hold that the refund claim filed by the appellant is within time. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order, accordingly, same is set aside.
5. Considering the fact that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the issue on merits, therefore, matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund claim filed by the appellant on merits after providing relevant documents by the appellant. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) NS 2 E/1556/2008-CHD