9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the refund was sanctioned within 3 months from the date of CESTAT order dated 9.9.2009 as well as within 3 months from the date of filing of refund claim dated 9.11.2009, both the adjudicating authority and appellate authority have rightly held that the appellant is not eligible for interest u/s 11BB - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/3804/2010-EX [SM] - A/60288/2017-SM[BR] - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate dated 31.5.2000 issued to the appellant by the Director of the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprise. Subsequent to the clearance of the vehicle and delivery of the vehicle to the appellant, a show cause notice C.No. V(87)VAL/MUL/20/2000/2988 dated 17.3.2001 was issued to the manufacturer, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon alleging that the certificate issued by the Ministry of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. and not against the appellant. As such the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed an appeal with CESTAT against O-I-A No.204/AKG/GGN/2004 dated 31.5.2004. Hon ble CESTAT vide Final Order No.684/2009-EX[DB] dated 9.9.2009 held that We are unable to sustain the orders of the lower authorities and we set aside the same and allow the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has requested that the case may be decided on merit of the facts and submissions mentioned in their appeal. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Heard the Ld. A.R. and perused the records. 5. On examination of the records and submissions made by the Ld. AR, I find that Hon ble CESTAT had set aside the Order-in-Appeal vide Final Order No.68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
