9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, but unfortunately, there are no initial for carrying out the correction or insertion which is essential; hence, the said insertions do not impress us. But in any case, as it is observed that the date of sanction was much earlier, the contentions of the assessee is accepted that it did not receive the Order-in-Original until 06.01.2011, when it had an occasion to meet the Commissioner of Customs (Export). These facts are not disputed by the Revenue - the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the issue on limitation, deserves to be set aside as unsustainable. The first appellate authority has not given any findings on the merits of the case, though he has discussed about the same in the impugned order - it is deemed appropriate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication, it emanates from the Order-in-Original dated 09.07.2010 that the adjudicating authority, after going through the refund applications as well as attached documents, however, appears to have sanctioned only a partial refund of Rs. 22,05,614/- thereby rejecting the balance amount of Rs. 10,87,215/-. 3. It appears from the documents placed on record before us that having not received the Order-in-Original dated 09.07.2010, the assessee, by its letter dated 18.08.2010, appears to have requested the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai for refund of the balance SAD. It also appears from the very same letter that the assessee has categorically acknowledged the receipt of refund of Rs. 22,05,614/- sanctioned on 11.03.2010. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear case of non-receipt of the order. Otherwise, the appellant would have immediately filed an appeal for the sanction of balance amount. In any case, according to her, the refund was sanctioned as early as 11.03.2010, which was also received by the assessee and therefore, the alleged sanction of refund per the Order-in-Original is an incorrect proposition, entertained by the first appellate authority. 7. Per contra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner defended the findings of the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and we have perused the orders of both the lower authorities. 9. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the appellant is served with Order-in-Orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the first appellate authority has not given any findings on the merits of the case, though he has discussed about the same in the impugned order. In view of the above, it is appropriate that we remit the matter back to the file of the first appellate authority for disposal of the appeal on merit alone, since we are satisfied that there is no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. 13. Resultantly, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the appellant stands allowed by way of remand. We also note that the matter pertains to the vintage 2007, when the refund application was filed and hence, we deem it proper to direct the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal as early as possible, prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
