2017 (11) TMI 1377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri M.S. Krishnakumar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER The above appeals are filed by the department being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order rejecting refund and sanctioned the refund claims filed by the respondents. 2.   Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a non-governmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... holding that they are time-barred. Against this, the respondents filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned the refund. Being aggrieved, the department is now before the Tribunal. 3.   At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel Shri M.S Krishna Kumar appearing for the respondent submitted that in the respondent's own c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Giridhari Lal & Son Vs. Balbir Nath Mathur & Ors. - AIR 1986 SC 1499 to observe that in order to avoid patent injustice or invalidation of law, strict adhering to the time limit for filing refund claims stipulated in a notification would only adversely affect the public interest and thereby defeat the very .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X