TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected only after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the party, who seeks for refund. The first respondent in the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 has also confirmed that no hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the second respondent and despite the same, has dismissed the appeal erroneously. When Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, makes it clear that hearing is mandatory before rejecting any application for refund, the second respondent as well as the first respondent in their respective impugned orders have arbitrarily and by total non application of mind to the said Rule has rejected the petitioner's application for refund. The matters are remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the first respondent in the appeal and would point out that even though the Appellate Authority has confirmed that no hearing was granted to the petitioner by the second respondent, has failed to remand the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. But, instead has confirmed the findings of the second respondent which according to him is not in accordance with Rule 92(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 5 . Admittedly, no hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the second respondent before passing of the impugned order dated 27.03.2019 rejecting the petitioner's application for refund. Rule 92(3) of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir case inasmuch as they were not put under notice before the claim was rejected. Though the appellant has valid argument, that alone would not rescue the appellant's cause on merit in view of the fact that they had not complied the instructions as provided under the Board's Circular dated 15.03.2018 discussed as above resulting in rejection of their refund claim by the RSA. Thus, the appellant miserably failed in their appeal. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER Appeal No.02/2019-TRY(GST) filed by M/s. World Home Textiles INC, Karur is rejected and the Rejection Order No.70/KAR/2019-20 dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Karur Division is upheld. 7 . When R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
