9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew that instead of there being parallel proceedings on the question of entitlement of the Appellant to refund, the better course would be to permit the Appellant to raise the aforesaid three issues, apart from other issues it may want to raise, in the appeal to be filed by it against the order dated 30th November 2015. In any event, on the second issue raised by the Appellant, the Appellate Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of. SERTA 3 of 2016 & CM No. 2157 of 2016 5. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 6th April 2015 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), by which the refund application filed by the Appellant was remitted to the adjudicating authority wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU ) is a Stateand therefore is outside the purview of Section 11B of the Act. The second grievance is that despite adequate documents and materials having been placed on record to show that the service tax was paid by mistake by the Appellant on its own and was not passed on to any other person, its refund claim was wrongly rejected. The third issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be filed by it against the order dated 30th November 2015. 12. Considering that the Appellants application for refund has been pending for quite some time, and with the Appellant having already approached this Court once earlier, the Court directs that the appeal to be filed by the Appellant be disposed of by the Commissioner Appeals within a period of three months from the date of registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
