9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut an exception from a normal refund claim. This according to me is in the nature of a special provision and hence, any claims made as a consequence of Appellate Order/(s) will have to pass through the rigours of (ec) ibid. When a specific provision is available in the statute covering the specific cases, it is the duty to examine whether a claim falls under such specific provision and if so, then such claims should necessarily comply with the conditions prescribed thereunder. The factual matrix here in the case on hand which is undisputed, is that the refund application was filed with a delay of more than four months in consequence of an Order of this Bench (Appellate Order) and hence, the same is not satisfying the specific provision u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period from October 2001 to August 2006 along with interest and penalty. (vi) The amount of ₹ 4,00,000/- paid by the appellant, as above, was also sought to be appropriated towards the above demand. (vii) The above demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 01/2017 dated 09.01.2007, with the result that ₹ 4,00,000/- stood appropriated against the above demand. (viii) On assessee s appeal, the above demand and appropriation came to be upheld by the First Appellate Authority, with a small variation. (ix) On further appeal, the CESTAT, Chennai Bench vide Final Order No. 41775 of 2017 dated 21.08.2017 set aside the impugned order thereby allowing the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Calicut [2014 (301) E.L.T. 288 (Ker.)]; (vii) Commr. of C.Ex., Bangalore v. M/s. KVR Construction [2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.)] (viii) M/s. Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen s Corporation Ltd. v. Commr. of G.S.T. and C.Ex., Chennai [2019 (12) T.M.I. 185 CESTAT Chennai] 6.1 Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue while supporting the findings of the lower authorities, would also rely on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. Cus. reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.). He also drew attention to mandatory condition prescribed at (ec) under Explanation (B) to Section 11B to stress that the statute itself h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims should necessarily comply with the conditions prescribed thereunder. 8. In any case, it is the settled position of law that a provision cannot be interpreted so as to reduce it to a nullity or rather make it otiose. 9. The appellant has, however, taken a ground that they have not received the Final Order passed by the CESTAT while admitting the fact that the Final Order had returned unserved. It is a matter of record that the Registry of the CESTAT would always send by Registered Post, not only the Final Order but even the notices (earlier), to the address furnished in the Appeal Memorandum, which has been meticulously done here also. Hence, they cannot throw blame on the CESTAT when there was no follow up action from their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
