9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the refund claim filed in terms of N/N. 17/2011 is well within time. It is evident that the Commissioner(Appeals) has traveled beyond the SCN and also against the findings entered by the adjudicating authority and thereby putting the appellant under surprise by rejecting the refund claim on the ground of being time bar - rejection of refund claim is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund claim. In appeal, the commissioner(Appeals) upheld the rejection and thus the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned consultant Shri Ashwavi Pahwa submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No.17/2011. That therefore the rejection of refund claim observing that it is time barred by Notification No.17/2011 is unjustified and pleaded that the refund claim may be allowed. 4. Against this, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. It is indeed correct that in the show-cause notice the Department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2009 has been superseded by Notification No.17/2011 and thereby at the relevant time, the option for the assessee was to file the refund claim only under the Notification No.17/2011. Therefore, I hold that the rejection of refund claim is unjustified. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs. (Order pronounced and dictated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
