9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced claim, cannot be considered as barred by limitation. Rejection of refund also on the ground that sufficient evidences were not produced in establishing the fulfillment of conditions laid down under the said Notification - Held that: - the Appeal is required to be remanded to the Adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification of the documents on record. Appeal allowed by way of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was returned on 02.02.2009 by the Asst. commissioner as it was not filed before the proper authority and mentioning other deficiencies in the said claim. The appellant removed the deficiencies and filed the claim on 08.4.2009 with the proper authority by reducing the claim to ₹ 8,42,096/-. Both the authorities below had rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation as well as on me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi Steel Power Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad - 2014 (308) ELT 163 (Tri-Del.). On merit, he submits that this Tribunal after considering all aspects of the claim, in relation to other units of the same appellant, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for scrutiny of the documents/evidences to ascertain the eligibility of refund under Notification No.41/2007-ST. 3. The Ld. AR for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed and filed on 08.4.2009 hence the refund claims cannot be barred by limitation. I find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant, and hence the refund claim submitted subsequently with the proper authority enclosing therewith almost the same set of documents/evidences in support of the claim albeit with reduced claim, cannot be considered as barred by limitation. Besides, ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
