9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not complied with condition 2(b) of the notification, the Department had sufficient knowledge about the proceedings as well as the order passed by the Tribunal. Even after the order passed by the Tribunal, the department has waited for 2 years to sanction the refund. Further, as correctly pointed out by Ld. Counsel that refund has not been rejected for not furnishing necessary documents. When the department was a party to the proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, the department ought to have taken steps to refund the amount when the litigation has been finalized at the Tribunal level - in the OIO as well as the order impugned herein the date of refund claim is noted as 3/2014 and 4/2014. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and from such date the refund has been granted within 3 months and therefore no interest is liable to be paid to the appellant. Aggrieved by such order, appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld.Counsel Ms. Y. Siri Reddy appeared and argued and matter. She submitted that even thought the Tribunal vide final order dt. 21.12.2017 had allowed the appeal with consequential relief the refund was not sanctioned to the appellant but appellant had sent a reminder letter on 24.01.2019. Later on 16.02.2019, the appellant had given clarification with regard to some typographical errors in the column with respect to quantity of goods sold as mentioned in the related invoices. This clarification is taken by the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years to sanction the refund. Further, as correctly pointed out by Ld. Counsel that refund has not been rejected for not furnishing necessary documents. After processing the refund, the adjudicating authority has denied refund stating that condition 2(b) has not been complied with. The letter dt. 16.02.2019 issued by the appellant is only a clarification correcting certain typographical errors in the statement column and the same cannot be considered as a document necessary to process the refund claim. When the department was a party to the proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, the department ought to have taken steps to refund the amount when the litigation has been finalized at the Tribunal level. Ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
