Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (10) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund claim for SAD on 3.11.2010. Appellants were issued with deficiency memo dt.19.04.2011 calling for to submit documents and also fixing the date of personal hearing. Appellants sought extension of time vide letter dt. 16.05.2011. The Order-in-Original dt. 30.06.2011 was passed by the refund sanctioning authority rejecting the refund claim. Against this, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with delay of one year and 11 months and pleaded that they did not receive copy of the Order-in-Original since the same might have been sent to their old address. They obtained duplicate copy of OIO and had filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein rejected appeal being tim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order it is seen that the appellants were given three chances of personal hearing on 4.5.2011, 11.5.2011 and 18.5.2011. Matter was taken up by the adjudicating authority for disposal only because appellant did not attend the personal hearing and no communication was received from their side; that appellants have filed appeal beyond the condonable period of delay of the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar. He submitted that though appellant had requested for adjourning the personal hearing scheduled on 18.5.2011, in this letter, they had not intimated to the department their change of address whereas the change of address was intimated only by letter dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e new premises in May, 2011 and the new address was shown in this letter. That after 16.05.2011 they did not get any intimation regarding their refund claim. They filed reply to the deficiency memo on 27.03.2012 and thereafter came to know that the Order-in-Original had been already passed rejecting their refund claim on 30.06.2011. On perusal of the letter dated 16.05.2011, it is seen that though the appellants have mentioned their new address in the letterhead, there is no intimation to the department stating that their address has changed. This letter is only a letter for request of adjournment of personal hearing. The Ld. AR is correct in submitting that the appellants had not intimated their change of address in their letter dated 16.0....