9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-9-1999. As a consequence of allowing of the appeal, the applicants/appellants became entitled to the refund of Rs. 1,10,000.00. The applicants/appellants wrote a number of letters to the Revenue for granting the said refund, but without any success. Thereafter, the present Application was filed. 2. The Application was listed on 5-5-2000 when a prayer was made by the learned JDR for getting the suitable instructions from the Revenue. Thereafter, on 15-5-2000, Orders were passed on the Miscellaneous Application directing the Department to grant refund of the duty-amount of Rs. 1,10,000.00. Learned JDR informed that he had also written to the Revenue, but there was no response from them. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application was allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 with directions to the Assistant Commissioner to implement the Tribunal s Order within a period of four weeks from that date and report compliance on 19-6-2000. When the matter came up on 19th, Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR prays for time seeking suitable instructions from the Assistant Commissioner. 3. Today, a prayer has again come from the Revenue, which is to the effect that a Reference Application moved by them before the High Court has been heard and decision reserved and as such, the Orders are not being implemented. 4. We find that there is no stay of the Orders of the Tribunal by the Hon ble High Court. We also note that the amount of refund which is due to the applicants is only to the tune of Rs. 1.10 lakh. In the above scena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter was again adjourned on number of occasions when a request was made by Shri Roy that the order is being implemented and necessary actions are being taken by the concerned Assistant Commissioner for implementing the Tribunal s Order. On this occasion, the matter is adjourned. 2. When the matter was called today, we are informed by Shri Sinha Mahapatra that the refund has not been given to them as yet, Shri Roy is also not in a position to give any reasons for not following the Tribunal s Order. In these circumstances, we are constrained to observe that the concerned Assistant Commissioner is showing scant respect to the Tribunal s Order and is delaying the payment to the appellants for the reason best known to him. As the orders pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which requires disposal of the Refund Claims within a period of three months from the date of passing of the Tribunal s Order. This having not been done, we direct the Revenue to grant the Refund to the applicant firm along with the interest at the rate of 12% per p.a. from the date of expiry of three months period from the passing of the Tribunal s Order, as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Gulf Olefines (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madurai reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1225 (Tribunal) = 1999 (39) RLT 226 (CEGAT). We leave it to the Revenue to decide as to whether the said interest amount has to be recovered from the concerned person on whose account the Refund has been delayed to the applicants. With the above observations, we dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
