9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the claim in detail Adjudication Authority held that refund claim is submitted in time and out of Rs. 10,36,076/-, an amount of Rs. 76,137/- was allowed and rejected refund of Rs. 9,59,939/-. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue and partially allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to submit invoice/document pertain to certain transaction. Thereafter, appellant had a made detailed submissions and also submitted the document as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However. In De-novo adjudication, the Adjudication Authority held that since appellant had not submitted the necessary documents as directed within one year, it is treated as a fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in allowing the petition for change of cause title of the appellant and to hear the appeals also on merit. Considering the same, the petition for change of cause title is allowed. As regarding appeal on merit, learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the appeals were rejected prima facie on the ground that on remand, the appellant were directed to produce certain documents and considering the production of said documents as fresh refund claim Adjudication Authority and the first appellate authority as per impugned order rejected the claim on the ground that the claim is submitted beyond the period of limitation. Prima facie considering the defect cured by the appellant as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in remand cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has rejected the claim on the ground that there is a delay in submitting the document after remand by considering the same as submission of fresh refund application. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that if at all there was non-compliance of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Adjudication Authority ought to have taken the issue suo moto for the Adjudication as per the directions of the first Appellate authority. Thus, Adjudication Authority has disregarded the order of the first appellate authority and caused great hardship to the appellant. Learned Counsel also relied on large number of decisions including the following and submits that present refund is not hit by Section 11(b)(ec) of the CE Act. 1. M/s. Gil Shared Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation relied by the appellant. Fact being so, considering it has a second refund application and rejecting the same as time barred is prima facie unsustainable. As regarding claims on merit, the first appellate authority while considering the Refund claim against Appeal No. ST/20660/2022 has upheld the rejection of refund of Rs. 28,116/- pertains to professional fees claimed under the category telecommunications services and Rs. 39,337/- pertains to transport of passengers and Rs. 9,838/- pertains to sound recording services. Since appellant has not filed any appeal challenging the said order, said finding attained finality. Accordingly appellant is eligible for refund of balance amount only on production of the document. Considering the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
