2016 (12) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i Mukherjee, Advs. for the respondents ORDER The Court : The petitioner claims interest on the amount refunded by the Central Excise Authorities in terms of Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was entitled to certain rebate. It had applied for the same. In some cases the Authorities had allowed rebate. In some th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its that, the application for refund was mired with technical deficiencies and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim interest for such period. He refers to the observation made in this regard in the impugned revisional order. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and materials made available on record. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) has considered the question of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efund was not in accordance with the procedure has been substantiated. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did apply for refund. The procedure for making demand and alleged infraction as contended on behalf of the respondent has not been substantiated. In such circumstances, W.P. No. 558 of 2010 is disposed of by directing the revenue to pay interest in accordance with Section 11- BB of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X