9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the same on account of lack of knowledge, a separate application along with refund claim was not filed and keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rallies India Ltd Vs CC [2006 (6) TMI 280 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do the same and remand both the appeals to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim of the appellant on merits and the appellant should produce before the adjudicating authority all the documentary evidence which is in his possession to claim the said refund. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - ST/2614/2011, ST/2615/2011 - Final Order No. 20318-20319/2016 - Dated:- 9-5-2016 - Shri S.S.Garg, Judical Member For the Appellant : Mr Venugopal, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led beyond six months. The above said show-cause notice was adjudicated vide order-in-original No 43/2010 dated 30.7.2010/4.8.2010 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated 4.8.2010 before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mangalore which was disposed of vide order-in-appeal dated 31.5.2011 upholding the order-in-original by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is ex facie bad in law as the same has been passed in a manner contrary to the entire spirit of Notification 9/2009-ST. He further submitted that the time limit of six months stipulated in Notification No 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that delay in filing the refund claim was beyond the control of the appellant inasmuch as the services covered in the subject claim are provided by the banking companies who have not issued any bills/invoices, challans while providing the services and also while receiving the services appellants were not well versed with the provisions of this new notification as to documentary requirements. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No 21497/2014 in Appeal No. ST/ 2682/2012 wherein it was held that there is no need of filing a separate request for seeking extension of time limit of six months in order to file the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notification is such that a liberal approach would be adopted while considering the condonation of delay in filing the refund application. The learned appellants counsels argument that since the scheme was new and there was lot of confusion regarding the same on account of lack of knowledge, a separate application along with refund claim was not filed and keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal in the cse of Rallies India Ltd Vs CC cited (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do the same and remand both the appeals to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim of the appellant on merits and the appellant should produce before the adjudicating authority all the doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
