9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f. 01.01.2015. Accordingly, the appellant applied for refund on the service transaction, between the aforementioned companies, and was granted refund of Rs. 14,99,680/- + Rs. 81,25,805/- totaling Rs. 96,25,485/-. As regards the eligibility, the Assistant Commissioner determined 01.11.2018, being the date on which the order of merger of NCLT was produced before the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, he granted interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 01.02.2019 (being three months from 01.11.2018). Being aggrieved, for not allowing appropriate interest, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order in appeal observed as follows:- "4.(i) I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and considered the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in sanction of the refund. Moreover, the claimant of refund is entitled for interest in case refund is not given without three months of the filing of claim. Consequently, submission of refund claim without supporting documents will not be allowed. Even if claim is filed by post or similar mode, the claim should be rejected or returned with query. Memo. "The Adjudicating Authority has held that the interest is admissible only from 01.11.2018 when the copy of NCLT order has been produced by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. However, such plea loses its force in view of above instruction by CBEC. If the refund claim was deficient in documents, the same must have been returned back to the appellant with deficiency memo. Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till that date, as the appellant was not legally single assessable unit. As the assessee have produced order granting merger, of NCLT before the Adjudicating Authority only on 01.11.2018, they are not entitled to interest prior to that date. 5. Learned Counsel Shri Abhishek Gupta, C.A. appearing for the respondent supports the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and also relying on the ruling of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories -2017 (51) STR 214 (SC), wherein also the Hon‟ble Supreme Court have followed its earlier judgement in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India -2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC). Learned Counsel also prayed that in view of the Board Circular, specifis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
