9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority by order dated 6.1.2017 only. The appellant has come to know that he has paid excess duty only on such date. Therefore, the refund claim filed in February 2017 is well within the time and the contention of the department that the date of payment of last installment should be the relevant date is without any merits - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the refund claim is hit by time-bar since the relevant date is 31.3.2015 on which date the last installment was paid by the appellant during the period of investigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim observing that the refund claim is hit by time-bar. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty demand, the refund is well within the time. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the last installment of ₹ 1,19,804/- was made by the appellant on 31.3.2015. Since the amount already paid prior to this date is adjusted to the duty confirmed, the balance of ₹ 58,008/- which is due for refund has to be considered paid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
