9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue. - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2166 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. E. Vijay Anand For the Respondent : Mr. S. Murugappan - R1 JUDGMENT (Delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the claim made by the first respondent for refund after an expiry of seven years in violation of the time limit fixed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be considered by the second respondent appellate Tribunal as a valid claim under the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court raising the above-mentioned substantial questions of law. 3. Heard learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. We find that at the relevant point of time, there is no provision as pointed out by the Department to say that on an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the claimant, another application for refund is required to be filed. 5. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the reasoning of the Tribunal, which is as follows: 10. In para 100 of the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. judgement, the Supreme Court had directed that in respect of claims which had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants in the present case, statutory requirement in this regard has been complied with by the claimant seeking refund under the Act. Refund application need not be made at each stage if the initial claim before the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner is not successful. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the Mafatlal Industries' Ltd is that all refund claims including those made pursuant to an order in appeal/revision were subject to provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act/Section 27 of the Customs Act. I am therefore, of the considered view that the appellants are eligible for the refund amounts claimed. Their claims shall be allowed after scrutiny also from the angle of unjust enrichment as ordered by the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
