2025 (8) TMI 1399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeals of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. As the issue involved in all the 06 appeals is identical, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. The details of the all the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. OIO No. & date Period involved Initial application of refund was filed on Refund amount claimed for unutilized CENVAT credit OIA No. & date (Impugned Order) ST/60561/2023 15/AC/R/ST/CHD/2018 dated 18.07.2019 Apr-09 29-01-2010 151093 CHD-EXCUS-001-APPL-95-100/2022-23 dated 23.08.2022 (impugned order)   ST/60562/2023 16/AC/R/ST/CHD/2018 dated 18.07.2019 May-0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....des and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim as well as dismissing the appeals of the appellant on time bar is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that the original refund applications filed on 29.01.2010 was within time and the appellant has attached all the documents which are required for claiming the refund. Thereafter, the said refund applications were returned-back, which is not permissible under law. He further submits that, in fact, no refund claims were received back from the Department and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts, refund app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Vs. CCE, Goa - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 689 (Tri.- Mumbai). 6. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant did not receive the copy of the order rejecting the refund by the original authority and had to file a RTI application on 11.02.2022 and thereafter on 28.03.2022, the Department supplied the copy of the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim of the appellant and thereafter, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 23.05.2022, which is within the period of limitation as prescribed under law. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the appeals on time bar. 7. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 29.01.2010 which was within the time but the Department instead of issuing the deficiency memo within the prescribed period has wrongly returned the refund application which is not permissible under law. Further, I find that though the appellant re-submitted the refund claim application on 23.01.2019 with supporting documents for the purpose of re-verification by the jurisdictional authorities and thereafter, on 15.03.2019 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny the refund claim on the account of limitation and not on merits and though the appellant has filed the reply to the show cause notice submitting that the refund claim was filed within the time limit prescribed and has now re-filed but the original authority came to....