2012 (8) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp; Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate for the respondent   Per: Ashok Jindal:   Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order and are seeking stay of operation of the impugned order.   2. We have heard both the sides and find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, we are considering the appeal as well as the stay application together.  ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....008, within one year of the issuance of the notification. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that refund claim is to be filed within one year from the date of payment of SAD. Therefore, refund claims are barred by limitation. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that the department is taking divergent views as, when the responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are being followed as regards sanction of 4% CVD refund claim in a case where assessment are provisional. In this case, we find that the respondent had filed refund claim within time limit but the same was held premature by the adjudicating authority. In that scenario, we find that the refund claims filed by the respondent are within time.   5. We further found that the order of rejecting....