https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406772 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal, granting consequential relief. It found the rejection of the refund claim unsustainable, as the delay in filing was reasonable due to confusion over the responsible authority and the time needed to obtain necessary documents from SIPCOT. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents such as Teknomec Vs. CGST & CE, Chennai, which supported condonation of the delay. The appellant successfully argued that the claim was justified under section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Tribunal's interpretation favored the appellant, overruling the initial rejection. en-us Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406772 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal, granting consequential relief. It found the rejection of the refund claim unsustainable, as the delay in filing was reasonable due to confusion over the responsible authority and the time needed to obtain necessary documents from SIPCOT. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents such as Teknomec Vs. CGST & CE, Chennai, which supported condonation of the delay. The appellant successfully argued that the claim was justified under section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Tribunal's interpretation favored the appellant, overruling the initial rejection. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406772