9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e three Appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.349-351/St/Hal/2011 dated 24.10.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Kolkata. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had filed three service tax refund claims in March, 2010 for three quarters i.e.April to June, 2009; July to September, 2009 and October to December, 2009. These refund claims were rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has produced the relevant documents before this Tribunal to establish that the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to two refund claims for the period i.e. from July to December, 2009, are incorrect. Regarding the refund claim for the quarter, i.e.April to June, 2009, ld. Advocate submitted that even though the Notification No.17/2009-ST was in force on 07.07.2009, they had file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ussed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Such procedural lapses should not come on the way of sanction of refunds. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgements of the Tribunal in the case of Trident Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II reported in 2012(28) STR 505(Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Durhan Spintex & Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad reported in 2012(28) STR 366(Tri.-Ahmd.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erification of these documents which were held to be not produced before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding the claim for the period from April to June, 2009, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the same was barred by limitation having been filed under Notification No.41/07-ST. I find that there is some force in the argument of the ld. Advocate that the Notification No.17/2009-ST d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
