9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Dewan, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 whereby the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund of the appellant being time barred and upheld the order-in-original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Auto Parts falling under C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the impugned order qua rejecting the appeal on the ground of wrong mentioning of the notification number in the application for refund cannot be valid ground for rejection of the claim if otherwise admissible. 4.1 Learned Counsel furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndigarh-I vide Final Order No. 60669-60670/2017 dated 25.04.2017. * Kennametal India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Ltu, Bangalore 2016 (46) STR 57 (Tri.-Bang.) * Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Service Tax, Bangalore-I 2017 (3) GSTL 75 (Tri.-Bang.) * Commissioner vs. Dynamic Industries Ltd. - 2014 (35) STR 674 (Guj.) * Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vs. Bhilai En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 581 (G.O.I). 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that admittedly, the appellant has filed the refund claim beyond the stipulated period of one year as prescribed under the law and consequently, the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have rejected the refund claim only on the ground of limitation. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
