Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) In this Tax Appeal, the following substantial question of law has been raised: - "Whether a refund claim in terms of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 85/87 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1987 in respect of credit of duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which remain unutilized in respect of those consignments which were exported and sailed prior to 21 -5 -1989, made after expiry of six months is not barred by limitation - Counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that Order -in -Original has been preferred on 21st June, 1999. Initially, there were 5 refund applications. Four refunds were given and in this matter, only one refund application has been rejected vide Order -in -Original dated 21st June, 1999. In this matter, we are concerned with, an application No. AR4/I/89 -90, dated 3 -4 -89. The date of export is 20th May, 1989 and refund application was preferred on 22nd November, 1989 in a proper format as required under Notification No. 85/87 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1987 (Annexure 3 to the memo of appeal). The refund application was rejected mainly for the reason that it was time -barred. Initially it was not in a proper format and the so -called input was received from a company which has been closed down at the relevant time. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by CESTAT while passing an order dated 26th February,, 2007 [2007 (213) E.L.T. 528 (Tribunal)] and, hence, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside, as both the orders were passed twice in Order -in -Original and also in Order -in -Appeal.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the refund claim is filed beyond the period of limitation, the same is liable to be rejected.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent submitted that no error has been committed by CESTAT while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent vide order dated 26th February, 2007 [2007 (213) E.L.T. 528 (Tribunal)]. No substantial question of law is involved in this matter. The refund claim made earlier vide earlier letters has not been properly appreciated by the Department which are dated 25th May, 1989 and 4th July, 1989. Even otherwise also, refund claim was made on 22nd November, 1989 but it must have been received by the Department before 1 -2 days because the said application was dated 13th November, 1989, otherwise, the claim is hardly barred by a day or two. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the CESTAT while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent and, hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court.;