9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - The Revenue has sought stay of the Final Order No. 222/89, dated 6-6-89 vide which the appeal of the Respondents was allowed and the Revenue was directed to refund the duty amount to them in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). 2. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Hon'ble High Court, would cause great hardship and complications. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the Revenue has no prima facie cases and even the equity and balance of convenience are not in their favour for claiming stay especially when earlier their ROM as well as reference application moved by them before the Tribunal one after the other, were dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t vide order dated 14-9-2000 directed the Tribunal to make reference of the following question for its opinion : "Whether Section 11B of the Central Excise Act as amended applies to cases where though the order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending ?" 7. This question has yet to be decided by the Hon'ble High Court. The Tribunal vide its final order after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
