2016 (12) TMI 1335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 14.11.2014 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant being time barred without going into the merits of the case. 2.  Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the provisions of marketing support services to its group companies located outside India an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unutilised CENVAT credit as per Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-C.E dated 14.3.2006. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 23.3.2011 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim. Thereafter after hearing the appellant vide order dated 23.3.2011 the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund primarily on the ground that the appellant has failed to fulfil the obligations laid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly rejected the appeal merely on the ground of delay and has wrongly refused to condone the delay which was within condonable limit. He further submitted that the delay of 88 days was not deliberate and intentional but it was caused because the Order-in-Original was sent inadv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the delay in filing the appeal. The reason for delay in this case was that the recipient of the order in one department had not been communicated to the legal department of the company. However, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that appeal is a substantive right and narrow view should not be taken to dismiss the appeal. 5.  In the present case also by taking....