2022 (12) TMI 1333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have paid the service tax twice and therefore, they have filed refund application of excess paid service tax which was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide Order-In-Original dated 1.12.2016. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed vide Order-In-Appeal No.VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-518-2017-18 dated 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the refund claim could not have been rejected on time bar for the reason that the appellant's refund application was filed within time i.e. on 24.08.2016 thereafter, the matter proceeded for adjudicating thereafter, before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, after the learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order, the departme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d which was to be decided by learned Commissioner (Appeals). The refund was supposed to be given by the department on the basis of learned Commissioner (Appeals) order. In my considered view, even the letter from the appellant was not required moreover, the letter dated 29.1.2019 is not a refund application therefore, the entire basis for rejecting the refund claim being time barred is devoid of m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X