2015 (5) TMI 841

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the refund claim was originally filed on 30.11.2011 but the same was returned to the appellant on the same date by the adjudicating authority for submitting certain original documents.  The appellant Company submitted the documents on 25.01.2012.  However, it was held by the adjudicating authority that after submission of the documents on 25.01.2012, the refund claim was time-barred.  It is the case of the appellant that the period of limitation should be counted from 30.11.2011 when the appellant original submitted the refund claim.  He relied upon the following case laws on the issue:- (a) CCE, Delhi vs. Arya Exports and Industries   [2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case of Angiplast Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Ahmd   [2010 (19) STR 838 (Tri. Ahmd.) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee.  The order passed by this Bench in the case of Angiplast Pvt. Limited is reproduced below:- [Order]. - The appellant s claim for refund of accumulated grant of input services in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-07 stands denied to the appellant on the ground of limitation. While holding so Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under : "10. From the facts of the case I find that the appellant had originally filed refund claim on 26-8-08 received by the divisional office on 29-8-08. After scrutiny of the claim papers, number of shortcomings were found viz non-availability of original b....