9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Shri P. Gopakumar, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the business of Research and Development for new pharmaceutical products, covered under Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services. The appellant filed two rebate claims for the period 01/04/2007 to 30/09/2007 and 01/10/2007 to 30/03/2008 vide applications dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 was beyond the scope of show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the rejection, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2009 dated 18/09/2009 has upheld the rejection as made by the adjudicating authority, against which the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri V. Raghuraman, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under Notification No. 5/2006 ibid. when the initial application was under Notification 12/2005 ibid. and the adjudicating authority had granted partial refund. The matter had travelled up to the Tribunal and this Bench of the Tribunal vide its Final Order 21260/2016 dated 16/07/2014 had affirmed the above order of the original authority. The order of that Bench has become final without there be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra) cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary." The above itself is sufficient to hold that the rejection of conversion of refund claim into rebate is bad in law and unsust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
