9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said notification having met, although on a later date the failure to debit on the date of filing the refund is not such a lapse that it would debar the respondent from the refund - issue decided in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [2015 (10) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that The failure to debit on the date of filing the refund claim is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 required to debit the amount of refund on the date of filing the refund, however, respondent debited the said amount on 10/09/2015 before the Original Authority ordered sanction of refund to them where the respondent were sanctioned the refund of ₹ 6,948/- through Order-in-Original dated 12/10/2015. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort question to be decided is, whether refund can be granted to the respondent, when they have debited the amount not on the dated of filing of refund claim but on a later date. It is seen that the condition prescribed in the said notification having met, although on a later date the failure to debit on the date of filing the refund is not such a lapse that it would debar the respondent from the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
