9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the refund claim of Rs. 59,943.90 (Rupees fifty-nine thousand nine hundred and forty-three and paise ninety) filed by the appellant company is barred by limitation or not. 2. As per facts on record, the appellants applied for allowing the Credit of the amount paid in excess to the concerned Range Officer under their letter dated 23-1-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner in proper form only on 21-6-96. The said show cause notice was taken up for adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner who after taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and by relying upon the precedent decisions of the Tribunal as also of the Hon ble Supreme Court, observed that the first letter written by the appellants on 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he allowed the Revenue s appeal. 4. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not following the Supreme Court s decision. He submits that the amendment of Section 11B requiring the assessees to file the refund claim in prescribed proforma, has nothing to upset the ratio of the Supreme Court s decision, which is still applicable, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m for refund. As such, the computation of the limitation period would start from the date when the claim was lodged by the appellants with their Range Superintendent with a copy to the Assistant Commissioner. Inasmuch as the same is undoubtedly within the period of six months from the date from which the refund claim belongs. I hold that the same is not barred by limitation. Accordingly, I set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
