9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s - Held that: - Apex court in the case of GIRDHARI LAL AND SONS Versus BALBIR NATH MATHUR AND OTHERS [1986 (2) TMI 253 - Supreme Court of India], held that in order to avoid patent injustice or invalidation of law, strict adhering to the time limit for filing refund claims stipulated in a notification would only adversely affect the public interest and thereby defeat the very purpose of issuing N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a non-governmental organization engaged in rehabilitation and house construction work in the Tsunami affected areas. In terms of Notification No. 32/2005-CE dated 17.8.2005, the respondents were eligible for refund of cement and steel used in the construction of house. Accordingly, they filed refund claims for the different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishna Kumar appearing for the respondent submitted that in the respondent s own case, vide Final Order Nos. 170 to 174/2009 dated 11.2.2009, the Tribunal in identical facts in respect of the same notification had observed that time-limit prescribed in the notification is a procedural condition and violation to fulfill the same cannot affect the entitlement of the target community to receive the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only adversely affect the public interest and thereby defeat the very purpose of issuing Notification No. 32/2005. We do agree with this view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, since the refund claim for the quarter 1.7.2005 to 30.9.2005 is beyond the time limit of one year prescribed under section 11B. We are of the opinion that the respondent are not eligible for the claim of refund f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
