Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/592/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 592 of 2010
=================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD - II - Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S
AIA ENGINEERING LTD., PLOT NO 70-77, SURVEY NO 423/P, - Opponent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YN RAVANI for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 16/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue
is in appeal against the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Central
Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following
questions:
“a. Whether period of limitation can be excluded if previously
rebate claim petition is filed before an authority not competent to
sanction refund claim, more particularly, when a notification is
issued clearly describing Jurisdictional A.C./D.C. of C.Ex. to grant
rebate?
b. Whether tribunal committed error in extending period of
limitation, in absence of provision for condonation of delay?
2. With
the assistance of the learned counsel for the Revenue, we have
perused the order of the Tribunal and other documents on record. The
Tribunal noted that the assessee admittedly filed a rebate claim
within 60 days from the date of relevant quarter in terms of the
notification of the Central Government. The Tribunal recorded that
the assessee filed the refund claim before the Deputy Commissioner
within 60 days from the end of the quarter as required under the
Central Government Notification dated 6.10.2007. Such refund claim
was required to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Central
Excise. Since they were not filed before the competent authority such
claims were returned after which, the assessee presented the claim
before the Assistant Commissioner, who was the competent authority.
The claim was rejected on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner
(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue carried
the appeal further before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying on its
previous orders, rejected the appeal.
3. We
find that the facts are not in dispute. Refund claims were filed
within 60 days as permitted under the law before the appropriate
forum. Upon being returned, the assessee presented the claim before
the competent authority. Counsel for the Revenue candidly pointed out
that similar issues raised before us were dismissed by this Court. We
also see no reason to take any different view. Tax Appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J. )
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J. )
sudhir
Top