TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claims have been rejected is that the appellant has not complied with condition 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The said condition does not require the assessee to reflect the amount debited in their ST-3 returns. It is sufficient if the assessee/appellant debits the amount claimed as refund in their accounts. There is no dispute that the appellant has not debited the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The Department rejected the refund claims alleging that the appellant has not complied with Clause 2(h) of the Notification. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 10.10.2018 upheld the same. Hence, this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri. Ganesh Kumar appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The only issue on which the refund claims have been rejected is that the appellant has not complied with condition 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The said condition does not require the assessee to reflect the amount debited in their ST-3 returns. It is sufficient if the assessee/appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
