9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the said letter to connect inquiry with the refund application of appellant and inasmuch as there was no refund application prior to the present refund application, the appellants stand has to be appreciated and examined - the matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the appellants stand that prior to 26.8.08, no refund application was filed by them - app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the refund claim of ₹ 24,18,061/-, and rejected the refund claim of ₹ 11,37,548/- on the ground of limitation, by holding that the same stand filed after the permissible period of one year. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the refund application filed by them on 26.8.2008. However, there is no stamp of receipt of said refund applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and submits that correspondence with the VAT department was a general Misc. correspondence and there is nothing on record to show that such correspondence was entered into between the Revenue and VAT department in connection with the refund claim. 4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate submits that the notification in question i.e. notification No. 102/07 dated 14.9.07 came into ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is nothing in the said letter to connect inquiry with the refund application of appellant and inasmuch as there was no refund application prior to the present refund application, the appellants stand has to be appreciated and examined. As such, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the appellants stand that prior to 26.8.08, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
