9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also by mistake considered the appeal independently and by an order dated 31.03.2009, rejected the appeal - The Tribunal has imposed a cost of ₹ 10,000/- on the Assessing Officer personally for not having complied with the said order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.11.2001. There do not appear to be any mala fides on the part of the Officer. He passed an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re established by law with regard to disbursal of refund amount from govt. exchequer is proper and in accordance with law? ii) Whether the impugned order dated 29.10.2015, is perverse, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law and the same is therefore liable to be set aside? iii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal committed an error in ignoring that the application for refund filed by the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ). The Assessing Authority could not have done so in view of the said order of the Appellate Authority. It was bound by and ought to have complied with the same. 4. The respondent, however, filed an appeal for refund under Section 11-B of the Act, which was not necessary in view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
