9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- Needless to say that the date of original submission has to be taken for computing the period of one year as it is the date on which the appellant has filed the claim initially. The claim has been returned and not processed and rejected by the department. When the claim is returned for resubmission, the appellant is allowed to make the required rectification. The rejection of the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the period October 2013 to March 2014 and was received by the department on 7.10.2014. The said claim was returned to the appellant to rectify the defects and submit with necessary documents. The refund claim was then resubmitted on 20.1.2015. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority sanctioned the refund of Rs.1,58,739/-. Against such order the department filed appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of resubmitting the refund claim and not the date of original claim. It is argued by the learned counsel that the refund claim was returned to the appellant requesting the appellant to rectify the defects and resubmit the same. The appellant had accordingly resubmitted after rectifying the defects. The time ought to be computed from the date of original submission of the refund claim and not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim initially. The claim has been returned and not processed and rejected by the department. When the claim is returned for resubmission, the appellant is allowed to make the required rectification. On such score, I am of the view that rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the same is time-barred when computed from date of resubmission of the refund claim is erroneous and requires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
