9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directing the Respondent to give effect to the Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 08.04.2022 and/or to implement the said Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal by refunding the amount of Rs. 2,57,38,894.67 alongwith interest; b) To issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari directing the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or assigns to transmit all the records pertaining to the case so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner by directing the respondents not to illegally withhold the amount of Rs. 2,57,38,894.67 refundable to the petitioner consequent upon the Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal; c) An Interim Order directing the Respondent Authorities not to withhold the refundable amount arbi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2004. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (In short CESTAT) which was numbered as Appeal No. E/365/2010. The said appeal was filed challenging the legality and maintainability of the Order-in-Original. The learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 08.04.2022, set aside the order of the Commissioner and allowed the appeal with consequential relief and as such, the petitioner became entitled to the amount of Rs. 2,57,38,894.67/- reversed under protest. 4. Pursuant thereto, vide application dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure-3), the petitioner-Company requested the respondent-Department for refunding the amount of Rs. 2,57,38,894.67/- along with interest and the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd as to why the refund application has not been entertained even after the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The law is no more res integra that mere filing of any application before any higher adjudicating authority will not absolve the concerned person to obey the order which is already in existence. 7. Admittedly, the show cause notice dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure-5) was duly replied by the petitioner, however, without adjudicating the show cause notice, the respondent-Department just delayed the matter of refund and forced the petitioner-company to knock the door of this Court. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that non-refund of the amount which was reversed by the petitioner on protest is unjust enrichment and is wholly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
