9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period 5.10.2002 to 31.8.2004. Decided in favour of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 1391 of 2011 -EX(SM) - - - Dated:- 24-12-2014 - Ashok Jindal,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Chibber , Adv. For the Respondent : Shri R K Mishra, AR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their claim of interest has been rejected as it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m on 23.6.2004 and the refund claim was sanctioned on 31.8.2004. The contention of the appellant is that they are entitled for interest of delayed refund after three months from the order of the Tribunal i.e. 5.7.2000 till 31.8.2004 when the refund was sanctioned. The application for interest on delayed refund was rejected by the lower authorities on the premise that refund claim has been sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re entitled for getting the the refund after three months of the order of this Tribunal dated 5.7.2000. As the refund claim has not been sanctioned to them and same was sanctioned on 31.8.2004, therefore, they are entitled to claim interest for the intervening period. 4. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that as the Tribunal has remanded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 802/35/2004-CX therefore the same is not applicable to the facts of the case, As in the case of UP Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd (supra), it is not coming out whether the refund claim was filed by the assessee or refund was made after the order passed by this Tribunal or not and in the said case, the circular dated 8.12.2004 was not considered. 7. Relying on the decision of ITC Ltd. (supra), the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
