9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment’ as clarified in the earlier Circular No. 93/2008, dated 1 August, 2008 - Held that: - the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that there were divergent views by the Board in Circulars dated 1-8-2008 and 29-7-2010 - The period of dispute under the present case is covered by the Circular dated 1-8-2008 provides that the relevant date is from the date of finalization of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Circular No. 93/2008, dated 1 August, 2008. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Hence, Revenue filed this appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal record. 3. Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously followed the earlier circular instead of the present circular where it is stated that the refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt date would be relevant in respect of old cases pertains to 2007-09 period. 5. The similar issue was decided by Hon ble CESTAT, New Delhi in case of Singla Trading Co. v. CC, New Delhi [2012 (285) E.L.T. 256 (Tri.-Del.), para 5 As is seen from above, the Revenue itself was taking a view that wherever the assessment are provisional, refund claims have to be filed within a period of one year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be rejected on the point of time-bar. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for processing the refund claim after verification of the documents, etc. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 6. I find that in the fact and circumstances, rejection of 4% SAD refund on basis of C.B.E. C. Circular No. 23/2010-Cus. is correct specially when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
