- (1.) Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
(2.) THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting their rebate claim on the premise that rebate claim was filed as time -barred as per time prescribed under Notification No. 41/2007, dated 6 -10 -2007. The facts of the case are that appellant is an exporter of goods. They filed their rebate claim for the services availed in the course of export of goods for the period January, 2008 to March, 2008 while the refund claim was filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Shimla on 28 -5 -2008. The refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the premise that rebate claim was not filed within time limit prescribed as per Notification No. 41/07. Therefore, appellant is before me. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has filed rebate claim on 28 -5 -2008 for the period January to March, 2008 and report was sought from the concerned authorities and vide their letter dated 28 -9 -2010, they have confirmed the fact that exporter has filed the rebate claim within the time prescribed in the notification claimed by the appellants. But same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority, in this prima facie view, impugned order is to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned AR supported the impugned order and submits that as the late filing of the rebate claim bears no name and stamp of the department and therefore same cannot be accepted.;