9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to sanction the refund amount of Rs. 37,08,580/- in terms of petitioner's application dated 22.10.2013 together with interest, at an appropriate rate, by way of compensation within the time frame. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner firm, engaged in quarrying and manufacture of granite produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.03.2012 was also issued, to show cause as to why the notification benefit under 44/2002 dated 19.04.2002 should not be denied for the purpose of confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and for imposition of penalty under Section 114 A of the Act. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reply was filed to that notice, however, the 1st respondent, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 958 dated 17.09.2011 for Rs. 12,33,580/- and Bank Guarantee encashed D.D.No.226209 dated 24.09.2012 for Rs. 8,25,000/-) The said application is kept pending. However, the 2nd respondent had informed the petitioner firm that the department had filed an appeal before the Customs Tribunal against the order in Appeal dated 11.07.2013. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned Standin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions made by the learned counsel on either side, to give a quietus to this issue, this Court is of the view that without going into the merits or with regard to the pendency of the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the refund claim made by the petitioner shall be directed to be considered by the 1st respondent within a reasonable time. 7. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
