Naptha Resins and Chemicals Ltd., Vs. the Commissioner of Central - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....referred to above and refund claim has been rejected without giving an opportunity to the party. the commissioner (appeals) has not appreciated the facts in disallowing the refund claim.2. on the other hand, smt. radha arun, submitted that assuming that the refund claims were filed on 18.6.996 and 6.8.96 respectively still there was a delay of 1 day in filing the said refund claims and there was no power to condone the delay and accordingly the authorities were justified in rejecting the refund claim.3. it was submitted on behalf of the party that in the similar facts and circumstances, the refund claim was allowed by the commissioner as per order in appeal no. 948/99-ce dated 30.8.99.4. on the other hand smt. radha arun, pointed out that since the commissioner (appeals) has taken the date of filing refund claim on 5.2.97 as per his order referred to above that the said order cannot be relied upon to the facts of this case.5. i have considered the matter. i find that the matter requires to be examined afresh by the commissioner (appeals) wit reference to the factual position and taking into consideration the submissions made by both sides and the subsequent order passed by the.....

Judgment:

1. This is an appeal filed by the party. Refund claim has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that refund claim was barred by time. It was the contention of the party that the D-3 intimation was filed by them on 18.6.96 and 6.8.96 and the refund claims were filed before the Assistant Commissioner on 18.12.96 and 6.2.97 and due acknowledgements were obtained from his office. It was also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order without giving any scope for the acknowledgement referred to above and refund claim has been rejected without giving an opportunity to the party. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not appreciated the facts in disallowing the refund claim.

2. On the other hand, Smt. Radha Arun, submitted that assuming that the refund claims were filed on 18.6.996 and 6.8.96 respectively still there was a delay of 1 day in filing the said refund claims and there was no power to condone the delay and accordingly the authorities were justified in rejecting the refund claim.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the party that in the similar facts and circumstances, the refund claim was allowed by the Commissioner as per order in appeal No. 948/99-CE dated 30.8.99.

4. On the other hand Smt. Radha Arun, pointed out that since the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the date of filing refund claim on 5.2.97 as per his order referred to above that the said order cannot be relied upon to the facts of this case.

5. I have considered the matter. I find that the matter requires to be examined afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) wit reference to the factual position and taking into consideration the submissions made by both sides and the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to him and to pass an appropriate order is accordance with law providing an opportunity to the party.

Thus this appeal is allowed by way of remand.