TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain original documents. There is also no dispute that the respondents had purchased the DC motors under sale invoices raised by WIL on them arid that the dates of these invoices were considered by the Commissioner (A) to find that the respondents had filed the refund claims in time. As per Section 11B(5)(e) of the CEA, the relevant date to compute one year period for filing claim for refund of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d erroneously. A total amount of Rs. 2,24,000/- was claimed. These amounts had been paid by them on purchase of DC Motors under three separate invoices. The original authority found that the refund claims had been filed beyond one year of the date of invoice covering the clearance of the subject goods by their manufacturer. On appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (A) found that only o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 and filed proper claims after making good the omissions on a later date. The Commissioner (Appeals) had erroneously taken the date on which the claims were initially submitted i.e., 4-12-02 as the date of filing of the refund claims. 3. Heard both sides. 4. I have carefully considered the case records and the submissions by both sides. There is no dispute that the respondents had filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
