9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides Shri B.J. Mookherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants refers to the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and states that since the Department has delayed grant of refund beyond the stipulated period of three months, the appellants are eligible for interest beyond the said period. We find that the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a personal hearing on 27-7-2000 vide letter dated 24-7-2000. Further, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 14-8-2000 asking the appellant why their refund claim should not be rejected as they failed to submit sufficient evidence against unjust enrichment. A personal hearing was fixed on 22-8-2000 which was extended on the request of the appellant on 7-9-2000 and again on 17-10-2000 but they failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted a Refund Application on 27-3-2000, the same was not accompanied by the supporting documents and evidence, and that the appellants also took extension of time for personal hearing and submitted the requisite evidence at a later point of time. As such, it I cannot be held that the appellants had filed a proper claim under Section 11BB in the first instance. We, therefore, find no reason to int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
