9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n considered by the authorities below and the reasons for delay are beyond the control of the appellant. The condition regarding the time limit is procedural only and it should be liberally interpreted and by taking a liberal approach, the delay in filing the refund application filed before the authorities below is condoned and the impugned order is set aside by remanding the case back to the original authority to decide the claim on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the request for condonation of delay in filing the refund claim is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that both the authorities have rejected the refund claims by not appreciating the grounds given in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the refund application. He also submitted that the appellant filed the refund claim on 30/06/2015 and on the same day they have also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the refund claim by giving reasons for the delay but both the authorities have not considered the reasons and merely rejected the refund claim on the ground that the reasons given in the applications are not convincing. He further submitted that for each service provider the appellant has g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions and filed the claim along with proper documents and there is no doubt about the eligibility of the appellant for refund but both the authorities have rejected it on the ground of delay in filing the claim. He further submitted that there is specific provision for extension of time limit for filing the claim provided in the notification itself with intention not to deny the substantive benefit of refund. He also submitted that the condition regarding time limit in the instant case has to be treated as procedural lapse. In support of his claim, he relied upon the decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd [1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC)] wherein in para 11, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- The mere fact that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claims but the same were not considered by both the authorities. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision in the case of Suzlon wind International Ltd. [2016(43) STR 468 (Tri. Bang.) wherein Notification No.9/2009-ST was involved which is identical to the Notification No. 12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013 which is involved in this present case. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and also submitted that the appellant has not produced the necessary documents which are required for claiming refund and more over, it was the discretion of the adjudicating authority to grant extension or not to grant depending upon whether the appellant is able to satisfy the authorities by producing documentar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
