9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that:- it is observed that the original refund claim was submitted within the time limit prescribed. The appellant filed a revised claim after a couple of months realising that there was some wrong calculation/error in the original refund claim, in the sense that items and serial numbers from 7 to 18 was not eligible for the refund. Therefore, they omitted the same and filed a revised claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- is barred by limitation on the ground that the revised claim was filed after the prescribed time limit is unfair, unjust and not sustainable. It is observed that the original refund claim filed on 7-11-2014 included this amount also, and was filed within prescribed time limit. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - ST/11366/2015 - Final Order No. A/10011/2016-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 4-1-2016 - Shri P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first appellate authority held that since the revised refund claim was submitted in the prescribed format, the date on which the revised claim was submitted should be taken as the relevant date. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On consideration of arguments of both sides and careful consideration of the records, it is observed that the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim and would have sanctioned the refund for the balance portion of the refund claim. Therefore, the action of the appellant of suo motu omitting the portion of the refund claim not eligible for refund has only facilitated the department and does not vitiate the original refund claim. Hence, the decision of the lower authorities to hold that a portion of the refund claim amounting to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
