9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no justification for the delay - rejection of plea for refund - HELD THAT:- A detailed affidavit setting out reasons for seeking condonation was filed before the CESTAT. The Tribunal however declined to condone the delay dismissing the appeal in limine, as against which the present appeal is filed. On a perusal of the reasons ascribed to the delay as well as for the reason that the petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting its plea for refund, which had been carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem. The first appellate authority had decided adverse to the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2006, as against which, the petitioner approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), albeit, belatedly with a delay of 80 days. 2. The order challenged before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then was), speaking for the Division Bench of this Court in Tiruchitrambalam Projects Ltd. V. CESTAT, Chennai (2016 (43) STR 531) took the view that a Writ Petition was maintainable in exceptional cases, though only before the Division Bench. 5. His Lordship had earlier expressed the same view in the Telangana High Court in Kalathil Brothers Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. C.C.E.S.T. C., Visakhapat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same by way of a claim. That claim was rejected under order-in-original dated 28.07.2006. 8. Before the Appellate Commissioner, the petitioner modified its claim to a refund of the amount paid in excess of the amount payable in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appeal was also rejected on 11.12.2006, as against which, the petitioner filed second appeal with a delay of 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
