2019 (2) TMI 870

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal filed by the Department and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for verification and passing a speaking order. 2. Briefly the facts of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2014 to December 2014 and January 2015 to March 2015. The appellant filed the refund claim for Rs. 18,79,760/- and thereafter, the Department raised some objections and thereafter, the appellant withdrew their refund claim to the extent of Rs. 1,89,529/- in respect of the invoices pointed out by the Department and restricted his refund claim to Rs. 16,90,321/-. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons and the binding judiciary precedents. He further submitted that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B is applicable for the FIRC received for the claim period and not for the input service invoices on which credit has been availed. He further submitted that the relevant dates specified under Section 11B of the Act does not create any ambiguity as far as refund claim filed in support of e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M. 4.1. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) should not have remanded the matter for denovo adjudication as the appeal filed by the Department was limited to only a part of the refund sanctioned. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned or....