9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Commissioner (Appeals) was suppose to decide the appeal of the appellant only on the issue of time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the refund is not time bar. As regard, the refund of ₹ 2,093/- the appellant have produced the corrected invoice wherein the correct address of the appellant is appearing. Therefore, it is found that refund of the appellant being filed within 1 year from the quarter ending is within time limit, hence they are entitled for the refund. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. ST/85313/2015 - Order No. A/86784/16/SMB - Dated:- 22-3-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Sagar Shah, C.A. with Shri R. Khairnar Advocate For the Respondent : Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FIRC No. 1380499 was issued in the month of March 2012. Therefore, there is no export in the quarter April 2012 to June 2012, hence the appellant is not entitled for the refund. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant submits that in the present case the adjudicating authority has not issued any show cause notice in respect of refund rejected by the Order-in-Original. In the Order-in-Original, the refund was rejected only on the ground of time bar. However, in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) categorically held that the time of 1 year should be calculated from quarter ending for which the refund claim was filed accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the refund under Rule 5 was rejected by the adjudicating authority only on the ground of time bar, for the reason that the FIRC was received on 13.4.2012 and from that date refund claim was filed after 1 year on 8.5.2013, therefore it is time barred. In the appeal of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) the Commissioner (Appeals) categorically held that since the refund has to be filed on quarterly basis, the period of 1 year should be computed from the end of the quarter and held that the refund is not time bar. However, he has rejected the refund on some other issue i.e. by interpreting the amended provision as per Notification No. 18/2012-CE(NT) dated 17.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
