9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ND HON BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri Naresh Thaker, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.Choudhary, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue JUDGEMENT Per Shri Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra. All the Appeals have been filed against different orders dated 26.03.2014, 17.07.2015 and 08.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri. 2. Brief facts of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/2008 was issued where the benefit of the refund was confined to only 56%. Thus, the Appellant has lost benefit of 44%. The Competent Authority has also declined to refund the benefit of 56% out of the 100% payment of duty by stating that the earlier refund will have to be re-credited for want of 44% of that amount. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present Appeals. 5. At the same tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the Notification upholds then assessee will not have any claim before the Tribunal. On the other side, if the Notification set aside then the Appellant will have the remedy before the Tribunal. Hence, crux of the problem is lying with the validity of the Notification dated 27.03.2008 which can be decided only by the Hon'ble High Court and certainly, not by the Appellate Tribunal which has no po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
