9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one year from the date of filing the refund claims are barred by limitation in terms of the Notification - HELD THAT:- In the cases, in hand, the refund claim required to be filed on quarterly basis in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Therefore, the appellant were required to file refund claims within one year from the date when the quarter ends and the same view was taken by this Tribunal in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for causing delay has been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the delay is condoned. 3. The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders, wherein their refund claims has been rejected as time barred filed under Notification No. 27/2012-CE N.T dated 18.06.2012. 4. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed two refund claims for the period April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal has followed the decision of the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of CCE, Cus ST- Bangaluru vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri.-LB) wherein but in the said case, the observation of this Tribunal is that after amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. Therefore, this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Admittedly, in the cases, in hand, the refund claim required to be filed on quarterly basis in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Therefore, the appellant were required to file refund claims within one year from the date when the quarter ends and the same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Neo Group S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
