9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued whereas refund claim has been required to be entertained within three months from the date of filing of the refund claim. But nothing was done in three months therefore, the argument advanced by the Ld. AR that appellant has not supplied required documents is not tenable. - issue is no more res integra wherein it has been held that for delayed refunds, interest is payable after three months fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and refund claims were sanctioned but transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund to the tune of ₹ 62,20,506/-. The said order of adjudicating authority was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who also affirmed the order of adjudicating authority. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 02.05.2012 remanded the matter back to the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filing of the refund claim. He further submits that the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. wherein vide Final Order No. A/50269/2015 ST dated 22.01.2015, this Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to claim interest for the period after three months from the date of filing of refund claim till it was sanctioned. In these circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued whereas refund claim has been required to be entertained within three months from the date of filing of the refund claim. But nothing was done in three months therefore, the argument advanced by the Ld. AR that appellant has not supplied required documents is not tenable. Further, I find that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
