9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to make good the omissions, appellants took their own sweet time. Not only the refund claim was filed beyond 60 days as prescribed under the Notification but remedial steps were also not taken by the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner’s letter informing the appellants of the requirements not fulfilled is a very detailed letter and therefore it can be treated as an appealable order. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequent decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection are to be sustained. - decided against the assessee. - ST/224/2010 - A/580/2012-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 23-4-2012 - MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, J. For the Respondent: Shri R. Nagar, A.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after giving detailed reasons on 9.2.09 and therefore proper course available to the appellant was to file an appeal. Thereafter the appellants filed an appeal which has resulted in the impugned order. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However written submissions have been received. Heard the ld. A.R. for the Revenue and considered the written submissions and the records. 3. The appellants have submitted that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice in this case and therefore they are required to be given another opportunity. They have relied upon several decisions in support of the submission. 4. I have considered these submissions. In the case of Madhumilan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LGW Ltd. 2010 (19) STR 825 (Tri. Kolkata) it was held that the Notification No.41/2007-ST is an exemption notification implemented in the manner specified therein and therefore it has to be treated as a complete code by itself and the time limit specified under Section 11B cannot be taken as the time limit for this purpose. Even otherwise it is noticed that the appellants took more than six months to reply to the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the claim. In the letter several omissions in the refund claim were pointed out and therefore it is clear that the refund claim was not complete when it was filed and to make good the omissions, appellants took their own sweet time. Not only the refund claim was filed beyond 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
