TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT OF DELHI] as well as by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS AIA ENGINEERING LTD. [ 2010 (9) TMI 555 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that the date of the original application should be considered. Thus, the date of original application for refund before LTU should be considered for the purpose of limitation under Section 11B. In this particular case, there is another twist inasmuch as the applicant has filed a consolidated refund application before the LTU covering all their units while the final refund application was confined to their Kadapa unit only and hence the amount of refund claimed was different. Thus, the date of their original refund application filed before the LTU New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factories in the country. The present case pertains to the registration of their factory in Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh. On 18.3.2011, the applicant received a letter from the LTU New Delhi accepting their request for transfer of their refund claim pertaining to the Kadapa unit. On 06.07.2011 the Assistant Commissioner-in-charge of Kadapa Unit informed that they have received records of their refund claim filed before the LTU New Delhi. He further stated that no refund application was pending for disposal on that date as their application for refund was returned by LTU New Delhi. On 03.11.2011, the appellant resubmitted the refund application before the Assistant Commissioner Cuddpah. 3. After issuing a show-cause notice and fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curate are concerned, he submits that they will be able to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner by providing necessary invoices and calculation sheets. He submits that since the documents were voluminous they had submitted some sets of documents and a sample set of invoices showing the relevant co-relation and also a CD containing the full set of documents. He would submit that if the matter is remanded they will be able to explain these documents and computation to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority. 7. Learned A.R. reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and asserts that the refund application was correctly rejected as the appellant was not able to substantiate his claim based on the invoices and the calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
