9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was submitted by the appellant, it was not complete in all respects and further supporting documents were asked for by the Department and after receipt of all supporting documents, the refund has been sanctioned within a period of three months. So the liability of the Department to pay interest in terms of Section 27A is not attracted in this case - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant vide Order-in-Appeal No. 110/2005 dated 19.12.2005. During the pendency of such dispute, the appellant had paid the disputed customs duty along with interest payable thereon which was subsequently sought as refund from the Department. The original authority after consideration of the refund application refunded certain amount of duty as well as the interest paid by the appellant. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. V. Union of India - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C). Similar views have been expressed by the Apex Court in the case of UOI V. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories - 2016 (333) E.L.T. 193 (SC). 3. Learned DR justified the impugned order. He submits that the delay in the sanction of the refund applied for by the appellant was because the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant, in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.2. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court cited by the appellant. We find that there is no dispute on the proposition that refund which is sanctioned beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of application will have to be paid along with interest. However question in the present case is when was the refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
