9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed in July 1999, on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 6,07,000/-. The said provisional assessment was converted into final assessment on 27-2-01, confirming differential duty of Rs. 6,06,571/-. The said duty was subsequently recovered by the Revenue by encashing the bank guarantee on 12-7-01. 2. The final assessment order was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal vide its order dt. 12-3-04. The said order was further appealed against before Tribunal and the appeal was allowed on 26-8-04, as reported in 2001 (177) E.L.T. 928 (Tri-Delhi). 3. With the allowing of appeal, the appellants became entitled to duty so recovered by the Revenue by encashment of bank guarantee. Accordingly, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Revenue's appeal against the above order having been rejected by the Tribunal on 17-5-07, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order sanctioning refund of Rs. 6,06,571/-. The said amount was ultimately refunded to the appellant. 5. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the interest on refunded amount. The Assistant Commissioner while sanctioning the refund amount, did not grant interest on the same on the ground that the refund application was filed on 13-3-07 in pursuance of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dt. 24-1-07 and as the refund has been sanctioned within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of refund application, no interest is liable to be paid to the assessee. The said OIO No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed by the appellant, stand denied by the authorities below on the sole ground that the OIA dt. 24-1-07, directing the assessee to file refund claim application has attained finality and was not put to challenge by the assessee. Inasmuch as the refund claim application was filed on 13-3-07 and refund was made on 14-5-07, there is no question of interest. 8. We find that apart from the fact that the said OIO dt. 24-1-07 was challenged by Revenue before Tribunal and Cross objections were filed by the assessee and Tribunal's order dt. 4-5-07 rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue, the said order can be safely held to have been merged with the Tribunal's order, the basic dispute about the assessment was finalized by Tribunal vide its o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
