9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Adjudicating Authority directed to grant refund of the said amount of ₹ 10,24,535/- with interest from 3 months ended from the date of refund application dated 30/07/2009. - Decided in favor of assessee. - APPEAL No. ST/1793/2011-ST[SM] With ROM Application No. ST/ROM/70370/2016 - Final Order No. 70277/2017 - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri K. K. Sharma, Advocate, for Appellant Shri D. K. Deb, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary The appellant have filed the present Miscellaneous Application for rectification of Final Order No. A/50225/-SM[BR] dated 12/02/2016, wherein the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The ld. Counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st collected without authority of law have to be refunded as in view of the law as clarified by the CBEC Board Circular, the amount deposited by the appellant towards tax no longer remained tax and the amount deposited towards interest no longer retained the character of interest. It was further urged in the appeal that limitation is not applicable in the facts and circumstances and reliance was placed on the Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus ITC Ltd. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court have held it has been settled by this Court that where excess duty was not payable by the party/assessee, under the provisions of a statute, but had in fact been paid under mistake of law, the party has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Final Order in the interest of Justice. 4. Heard ld. A. R. for Revenue who supports the Final Order of this Tribunal and further states that the refund of interest, have been rightly refused on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the ground, as aforementioned, have not been considered by this Tribunal nor the judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the appellant, nor there is any finding distinguishing the same. Thus there is in error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, the Final Order No. A/50225/-SM[BR] dated 12/02/2016, is hereby recalled. 6. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of record, I hold that the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
