TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Appellant. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)]. - The present appeal is preferred against Order-in-Appeal No. 194-CE/LKO/2007, dated 31-12-2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of Petroleum Products. During the period from 10-7-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me-bar; and another is proper original documents like invoices (under Rule 11 & PLA) were not submitted. 3. The appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who decided the appeal through Order-in-Appeal No. 463/2005-C.E., dated 11-11-2005. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the date of filing of refund claim was 8-7-2003 and the refund claim was within time. He also f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which is decided through Order-in-Appeal No. 194-CE/LKO/2007, dated 31-12-2007, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that since the original copies of invoice were not produced by the appellant, the rejection of refund by original Authority is in Order. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal dated 31-12-2007, the appellant is before this Tribunal. ....