9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of application for the refund the amount which is still not refunded. The sanction of refund of interest on the interest amount has been allowed for this decision only for the reason that the demand has caused unnecessary delay even while sanctioning the claim of refund of duty. There is no delay of sanction of refund of ₹ 37,75,854/- as was paid under Rule 18A as discussed above, the said claim of ₹ 66,01,485/-. was sanctioned within the period of 3 months as is required under section 11B. The interest thereupon has already been sanctioned as is required under section 11BB - there are no infirmity with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed. - EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50784/2019 - FINAL ORDER No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-, filed claim on 11.7.2016. However, the show cause notice No. V(55)18/273/2016-17/5976 dated 16.9.2016 was issued proposing the rejection of said claim of refund. The proposal was initially rejected by the Order-in-Original No. 18/2018-2019 dated 9.8.2018 and 342/18-19 dated 21.3.2018. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Shri C A. Raghav Rathi , learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ravi Kapoor, learned Authorised Representative for the department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that initially the refund of ₹ 66,01,485/- was filed which was sanctioned within 3 months of the application of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11BB. With the decision relied upon by the appellant, it is submitted that same is not applicable to the facts of the given case. Impressing upon that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge learned Departmental Representative prayed for dismissal of the impugned appeal. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, perusing the entire record, I observe and hold as follows: Apparently, the present claim is the claim of interest for the refund of amount of duty as was sanctioned vide Order dated 4.1.2016 by the High Court of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the interest of ₹ 37,38,422/- has already been sanctioned in favour of the appellant for the aforesaid amount of ₹ 66,01,485/-. It is also not in dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
