2017 (12) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Subramanian Adv - For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present six appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant on time bar. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 18,19,717/-. The refund was rejected by the lower authority on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of duty. Aggrieved by the order of the lower authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who has also upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... index by IEEMA and therefore, that date should be considered as a relevant date for refund. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by various Courts in favour of the Revenue and in support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions: i. MRF Ltd.: 199....