9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim was filed by the appellant on 3.9.2001. It is because of the rejection of the refund claim, the matter had travelled upto the Tribunal and as per the Tribunal s order dated 27.9.2003, the department had sanctioned the refund on 19.1.2004. Though the refund was sanctioned as per the order of the Tribunal, but it is the same refund claim which was filed on 3.9.2001. This issue is no longer res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case is the period for granting the interest on the refund already sanctioned. The appellant claimed interest from three months of the filing of their refund application till the sanction of the refund. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim of interest on the ground that the refund matter was finally decided by the Tribunal vide order No. 435/03-NB(A) Misc. Order No. 172/03 dated 27.9.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund application. She placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CCE vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 498 (Bom.); (ii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC); (iii) UOI vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. 2014 (305) ELT 396 (Bom.); (iv) CCE vs. Sulaki Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (310) ELT 511 (Bom.); (v) Swaraj Mazda Ltd. vs. UOI 2009 (235) ELT 788 (Bom.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter had travelled upto the Tribunal and as per the Tribunal s order dated 27.9.2003, the department had sanctioned the refund on 19.1.2004. Though the refund was sanctioned as per the order of the Tribunal, but it is the same refund claim which was filed on 3.9.2001. This issue is no longer res integra as the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
