9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturers of coated papers falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 8410.10 of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 28.3.2011 allowed the claim for the period from 8.3.2001 to 31.03.2001 and rejected the claim for the period from 1.11.2000 to 7.3.2001 as time barred. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim on 30.3.2012 for the period from April 2001 to December 2001 and from January 2002 to March 2002. The original authority vide the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there was no necessity to file a fresh claim of refund and the departmental authorities were bound to grant the relief as per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court which has granted the refund for a particular period. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has already granted the refund and the department cannot sit in decision against the order and bring in extraneous condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect that the limitation starts from the date when the copy of the judgment is received by the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 28.3.2011 which clearly allows the appellant to claim refund fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
