9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 1-2-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the Order-in-Original dated 11-6-1997 passed by the Assistant Collector sanctioning the refund claim of Rs. 46,97,392/- to the respondents. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly stated as under :- The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal vide Final Order dated 4-7-1995 modified that order to the extent of granting exemption under Notification No. 134/86, dated 17-12-1986 to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed the refund claim for Rs. 73,46,987/- vide letter dated 31-8-1995 but that letter was returned to them and they again after correcting the amount of refund, claimed refund of only Rs. 46,97,392/- o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the respondents for recovery of the amount for which they had sought the refund, as there had been no actual payment erroneously or otherwise, to them by the Department. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel has tried to support the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This view of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the face of it is erroneous in law. Even the ld. Counsel has conceded to this. The Counsel has rather requested for remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the case on merits in accordance with the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247]. Therefore, the impugned order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
