9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed 2 refund claims of 4% SAD as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007. The refund claims were filed in 2017 and the same was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that condition 2(b) of the notification has not been complied by the appellant. Against such order, the appellant filed ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore no interest is liable to be paid to the appellant. Aggrieved by such order, appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld.Counsel Ms. Y. Siri Reddy appeared and argued and matter. She submitted that even thought the Tribunal vide final order dt. 21.12.2017 had allowed the appeal with consequential relief the refund was not sanctioned to the appellant but appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 3 months from the date of filing of the refund claim. She relied upon the decision in the case of Shelf Drilling International Inc. Vs Union of India - 2016 (341) ELT 164 (Bom.) to support her argument. She prayed that appeal may be allowed. 3. Ld.A.R Shri S. Balakumar reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. On perusal of records and after hearing the submissions made by both sides, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund stating that condition 2(b) has not been complied with. The letter dt. 16.02.2019 issued by the appellant is only a clarification correcting certain typographical errors in the statement column and the same cannot be considered as a document necessary to process the refund claim. When the department was a party to the proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
