9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest by considering the date of filing of the refund claim is not warranted - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India], where it was held that liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.3.2009 in terms of Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 for an amount of ₹ 31,75,430/- being the unutilised Cenvat Credit on input services said to be utilized towards taxable services exported during the period October 2008 to December 2008. The original adjudicating authority vide its order dated 28.10.2009 rejected refund claim and aggrieved by the said order assessee filed appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that this issue is no more resintegra in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs UOI [2012 (27)STR 193 (S.C.)] which has been followed by various courts in subsequent decisions. She relied upon the following decisions: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
