9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant along with the reply to the show cause notice which specifically states that due to the distance between their head office and the factory premises, this information was not captured in the general accounts of the appellant. As this letter should have been considered by the lower authorities in its proper perspective and a view should have been taken it was ignored. Therefore, both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Rs. 47,858/- in terms of the Notification No. 15/2009 dated 20.5.2009. On scrutiny of the said refund claim, it was observed that the actual payment was made for services from 08.9.2009 to 20.3.2010 and the claim of refund should be filed within six months from the date of actual payment of service tax by such developer or unit to the service provider. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant M/s. Intas Pharma Limited. He would submit that along with reply to the show cause notice, which was filed on 01.11.2010, the appellant had filed an application for condonation of delay, giving reasons for delay in filing the refund claim before the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the lower authorities have not considered this application for condonation of delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises, this information was not captured in the general accounts of the appellant. In my view, this letter should have been considered by the lower authorities in its proper perspective and a view should have been taken. Adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has not referred to this letter which was filed by the appellant along with the reply to the show cause notice. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
