9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie, we find that the show-cause notice itself restricted the refund to ₹ 4,22,062/- and main allegation in the show-cause notice that the assessee has submitted the bills pertaining to over one year from the date of LET export as per the notification. Prima facie, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee is strictly eligible for refund of the duty which is within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 as amended from time to time for the quarter October 2008 to December 2008 amounting to ₹ 8,42,001/-. By show-cause notice dated 11.5.2010, the refund amount was restricted to ₹ 4,22,062/-. The original authority sanctioned the refund of ₹ 4,21,790/- and rejected the balance amount of ₹ 4,20,211/- on account of the services viz. C F Agent as this service has been brough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent Order-in-Appeal is liable to set aside on the ground that earlier Commissioner (Appeals) already passed the order against the same adjudication order. She also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Revenue as they have not fulfilled the conditions which is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period of limitation as provided under the notification. Prima facie, we find that the show-cause notice itself restricted the refund to ₹ 4,22,062/- and main allegation in the show-cause notice that the assessee has submitted the bills pertaining to over one year from the date of LET export as per the notification. Prima facie, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
