9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eptember 2008. The refund claim has been filed on 30.03.2009, therefore I hold that the refund claim is within time - Following decision of assessee's own p0revious case [2014 (1) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/29/11-Mum - - - Dated:- 12-2-2014 - Mr. Ashok Jindal , J. For the Appellant : Shri Prasad Paranjape with Mihir Mehta, Advs. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence of co-relation between the export goods and service availed. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the adjudication order and also held that as the appellant has not filed refund claim in proper format, the same is liable to be rejected. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me. 3. The ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice are beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. Therefore that cannot be the ground of rejection of the refund claim as held by the Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the refund claim is to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the impugned order and submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard to the other issues, I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has recorded that While I agree to the contention of the appellants regarding impugned order, being traversed beyond show-cause notice, yet I find that they should have filed refund claim in prescribed format. 8. As the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) himself has observed that the findings of the Adjudicating Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
