Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Super Spinning Mills Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore on 13 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/372/2007
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 26/2007-CE dated 27.03.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Coimbatore).
For approval and signature
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
______________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ______________________________________________________________
M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd. . : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore : Respondent
Appearance Shri T.V. Suresh Kumar, Adv., for the appellant Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondent CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 13.08.09 Date of decision : 13.08.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Heard both sides. This is an appeal relating to the rejection of claim for rebate of excise duty paid on goods exported. The claim has been rejected on the ground of time bar holding that the claim filed before the original authority was not validly filed within the prescribed time limit of one year. In this case the export transaction has taken place on 04.05.05 and the appellants have filed the claim on 28.04.06. The appellants were asked to file legible documents accompanying the refund claim and they resubmitted their claim after rectification of the defects vide their letter dated 05.05.06. The claim was received at the Divisional office on 09.05.06. As such, the claim has been rejected taking the date 09.05.06 to be the date of filing the same.
2. Heard Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao, who takes a preliminary objection that according to Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide an appeal in respect of an order if such order relates to rebate of duty of excise on goods exported. I find that the objection taken by the Ld. SDR is valid and hence the appeal is rejected as not maintainable.
3. However, it is seen that the lower appellate authority while passing the impugned order has not attached the usual preamble of the order specifying that the appellants should approach the concerned revisional authority for filing a further appeal. As such, the appellants are given liberty to approach the concerned revisional authority in the matter for dealing with their grievance. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 3