2019 (10) TMI 1426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that appellant filed six refund claims before the Adjudicating Authority and all the six refund claims were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Against which, for the refunds pertaining to June 2008 to September 2008, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be allowed and the appellant rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he stand of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissed the appeal, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri Dhaval Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since the admissibility of refund has already been decided in respect of four refund claims, therefore, for other two refund claims the appellant is entitled for refund. 3. Shri S.N. Gohil, Learned Superintendent (AR) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... challenged. In the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Limited (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that without challenging the order, refund cannot be claimed. Therefore, agreeing with the view taken by both the lower authorities, we are also of the view that since the appellant have not challenged the rejection order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the said order attained finality ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X