9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Shri Atul Handa, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the order wherein their claim of refund of Rs. 1 crore has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts thereof. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellant for denial of cenvat credit for the period 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r vide Final Order No.431/06-Ex dated 15.5.2006, this Tribunal has set aside the demand confirmed against the appellant and allowed the appeal. Consequent to the order dated 15.5.2006 of this Tribunal,, the appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 4,66,35,243/-. Both the authorities below granted refund claim of Rs. 3,66,35,243/- and failed to entertain the refund claim of Rs. 1 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said mistake was not rectified which shows arbitrariness of the concerned officer for withholding the amount of the refund claimed by the appellant. He further submits that the appellant is entitled for interest for intervening period on the said refund claim. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR submits that at time of adjudication an amount of Rs. 3,66,35,243/- was appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4 crore through TR-6 challans which were placed on record and the same has been recorded in the show cause notice itself. In that circumstance case, the appellant was entitled for the refund claim of Rs. 4,66,35,243/- but the authorities below has sanctioned a claim of Rs. 3,66,35,243/- which is incorrect. In fact the appellant is still entitled for refund of Rs. 1 crore which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
