9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that the appellant are a manufacturer- exporter registered with the Department. They were issued a show cause notice dt.27.8.2015 for rejection of refund amounting to Rs. 5,28,051/- under Notification No.42/12-ST dt.29.6.2012. The matter was adjudicated and the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dt.12.4.2016. A corrigendum to the said Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2016, which is within the limitation period. He also argued that the law is settled that when a corrigendum is issued to an Order-in-Original, the limitation has to be counted from the date of service of the corrigendum order. In this regard, he relied on the following judgments:- 1. Arihant Telecommunications vs. Union of India-2017 (4) TMI 387-Bombay High Court. 2. Pan Drugs Ltd. vs. Union o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el of the order intended to be rectified and hence the period of filing appeal is to be reckoned from the date of corrigendum. In this regard, in similar set of facts, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Arihant Telecommunications (supra) has held below:- "4. In the present case, the order-in-original was passed on 31-10-2012 and the appeal was filed on 27-2-2013. It would be seen that after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra). 7. In view of the above settled position of law, the period of limitation in the present case, is to be computed from the corrected date of the order, which is 3.6.2016. By taking the date of corrigendum, the appeal is within the period of limitation. Considering the above, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
