9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken as the date of filing of the refund claim. In the case of SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2016 (8) TMI 1515 - DELHI HIGH COURT] a similar issue was considered. It was held that when a refund application is made within the prescribed time-limit before a wrong forum and subsequently filed before the correct authority/forum, the original date of filing of the claim has to be taken for computing the time-limit of one year. The rejection of refund on the ground of time-bar cannot be justified. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim is set aside. However, the matter requires to be remanded to the Original Authority who shall process the refund claim on merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letters dated 18.10.2010 and 03.06.2011 requested to transfer the refund application from the Refund (Sea), Custom House, Chennai to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refund (AIR), Air Cargo Unit, Chennai. Through continuous follow-up, the refund application was transferred to the Air Cargo Unit, Chennai on 15.12.2012. 3. However, without issuing a Show Cause Notice, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant observing that the same was hit by time-bar and was filed beyond the time-limit of one year from the date of payment of duty. 4.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the refund claim has been rejected without issuing a Show Cause Notice or without granting an opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 786 (Tri. All.)] 4.3 It is also argued by him that in the appellant s own case, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 339 and 341/ 2013 dated 12.03.2013 had sanctioned the refund for different refund applications. Against such order, the Department had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and as per Final Order No. 40018 to 40041 of 2014 dated 07.01.2014, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. 4.4 He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 5. Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Authorized Representative for the respondent, supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. On perusal of the impugned Order-in-Original No. 70/2013 Refunds Air dated 21.01.2013, it is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
