2019 (11) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt Shri H. S. Brar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal Appeal No. ST/60221/2019, the applicant filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 64 days. 2. Considering the reasons for causing delay has been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the delay is condoned. 3. The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders, wherein their refund ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e refund claims be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submitted that in the case of Neo Group Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal has followed the decision of the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of CCE, Cus & ST- Bangaluru vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri.-LB) wherein but in the said case, the ob....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ITR 466 (SC) and held that the refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Admittedly, in the cases, in hand, the refund claim required to be filed on quarterly basis in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Therefore, the appellant were required to file refund claims within on....