9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the appellants knew that no more than one application can be filed per quarter - appellants have not disputed the fact that the said condition No.2(a) of the said notification has specifically stipulated the frequency and the appellants have themselves interpreted the said condition as referring to frequency; however, the two refund claims as above filed for the same quarter Jan 07 to Mar 07 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 2007. Earlier the original adjudicating authority rejected three refund claims in a single order and the claim relates to the present appeal was one among them. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original adjudicating authority s order. The appellants contended that their refund claim of Rs.69,024/- was rejected on the ground that by submission of two applications for same quarter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e quarter, April 2007 to June 2007. The first application dated 10.09.2007 sought refund of Rs.1,64,168/-. The second application dated 11.01.2008 sought refund of Rs.69,024/- for the same quarter. The appellants have not raised any contention on this point in the appeal memorandum. On the other hand the appellants consultant at the time of personal hearing categorically stated that the present cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Jan 07 to Mar 07) as mentioned here above. As such, I hold that the second application filed by the appellants seeking refund of Rs.69,024/- is hit by the condition No.2(a) of the said Notification No.5 of 2006. Therefore the lower authority s order of rejecting the claim of the appellants to the said extent of Rs.69,024/- requires to be upheld. 3. I am in complete agreement with the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
