TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The appellants are admitting their mistake by stating that the correct notification should have been notfn. no. 18/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. I note that before rejecting the refund claim, no show-cause notice was issued to the appellants. Similarly, no personal hearing was also granted so that the appellants could have rectified the mistake. Even before the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the refund under notification, they will not be eligible for any interest for the intervening period - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ST/567, 568/11-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/1194-1195/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 4-6-2014 - P K Jain, J. For the Appellant : Shri C Subba Reddy, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B K Iyer, Supdt., AR PER : P K Jain The brief facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission agent. The refund claim was filed within the time limit prescribed. However, the said refund claim has been rejected on the ground that the refund claim has been filed under notification no. 17/2009-ST and no show-cause notice was issued to them before rejecting the said claim. Similarly, no personal hearing was granted. In fact, even the adjudicating authority in the original order has obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at initially the claim was not under the correct notification. Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as also the order of the Asstt. Commissioner are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority to examine the claim under Notification no. 18/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009. The original authority will consider the claim as if the claim und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
