9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the decision in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein it is held that date of FIRCs has to be taken as the relevant date for computing the period of one year for filing the refund claim - rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/411 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal authority rejected the refund claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. None appeared for the appellant, though notice of hearing was issued. On 22.5.2018, the matter was posted for hearing to today i.e. 10.7.2018 as last chance. Still there is no appearance for the appellant. The matter is therefore taken up for disposal after hearing the ld. AR for Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have filed the refund claim on 30.9.2013 which is well within the prescribed time limit of one year. 4. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the refund claim is barred by limitation. The authorities below have applied the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice. 7. From the above discussions as well as following the principle laid in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
