TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has allowed the refund, it was not incumbent on the appellant to file a fresh application claiming refund and the department should have implemented the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court and should not have raised any objection with regard to time bar - the rejection of refund on time bar is also not justified because from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment of Hon’ble High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id on cash discount, quantity discount and dealer discount of ₹ 3,09,653/- for November 2000 to December 2001 and ₹ 5,31,333/- for January 2002 to March 2002. Both the claims were rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2002 and 18.6.2003 on the ground that no discounts were shown in the invoices at the time of clearance of the goods. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 being not covered by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court and the claim pertaining to April 2001 to December 2001 as time barred. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who also rejected the refund on time bar and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that rejection of the refund claim of ₹ 2,79,564/- for the period from 8.3.2001 to 31.12.2001, the respondent has disobeyed the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka which is binding on the department. He has further brought on record the judgment of the Hon ble High Court dated 28.3.2011 and submitted that the copy of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court was delivered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,79,564/-. Further, I find that once the High Court has allowed the refund, it was not incumbent on the appellant to file a fresh application claiming refund and the department should have implemented the judgment of the Hon ble High Court and should not have raised any objection with regard to time bar. Further, I also find that the rejection of refund on time bar is also not justified because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
