2011 (6) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th sides.   2. Refund claims of Rs.50,996/- and Rs.4,65,269/-of the appellant-SEZ unit have been rejected under the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. The claims relate to the period March 2009 to June 2009 which were submitted in November 2009. Part of the claim has been filed beyond six months. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that Notification No. 9/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....part of the refund before whom the appellant shall submit the reasons backed by adequate evidence for the delay caused in applying for the refund claim for his consideration.   3. As regards the other part of the refund claim, which has been submitted within the stipulated six month period, the original authority had rejected the same on the ground that the impugned services were not used ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd chance. This request made on behalf of the appellants is also reasonable. Hence in this regard also, the appeal is remanded to the original authority for consideration of the adequate evidence to be produced by the appellants to prove that they satisfy the requirement of sub-para (c) of the proviso to paragraph 1 of the Notification No. 9/2009 dated 3.3.2009 as amended by Notification No. 15/20....