9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal adjudicating authority before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the said order rejecting the refund claim and remanded the matter. He argued that while remanding the matter, in para 5.4 of the order, Commissioner (Appeals) had directed refund of penalty along with interest. He argued that in the remand proceedings the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund and interest to the appellant. The Revenue challenged the sanctioned order before Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the interest sanctioned. The Commissioner (appeals) set aside the order of the original Adjudicating Authority again. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel argued that in para 5.4 of the remand order of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 03.07.2017 has observed as follows:- "5.4. I further find that the adjudicating authority has merely mentioned the legal position of Section 35FF without discussion how it makes its impact upon the instant case. As contested by the appellant, the consequential refund claim in respect of said CESTAT Order dated 26.03.2008 for setting aside the penalty was filed on 24.4.2008. Therefore, I find that the effectual date from which interest is due to the appellant under these circumstances shall be on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of original refund application. In this context, it is significant to refer to Board's Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX, dated 1-10-2002. 5.5.................. 5.6. I am of the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section. It cannot be said that Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law in that case. Whereas in the case of M/s. Medico Lab Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was dealing with the issue of remand only and after considering the issue in detail, Hon'ble High Court had come to the conclusion that the Commissioner has powers to remand. In view o the fact there are contradictory decisions of the Tribunal other than the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana there is no other decision holding a contrary view to that of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Medico Lab, I conclude that as far as Gujarat State is concerned, the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is binding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
