9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts, the issue relates to the eligibility to get interest on delayed refund claim. 2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture health products and medicines etc.; that certain dispute arose regarding the valuation of their goods and eligibility to avail benefit of Notification No. 175/86; that as the Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the method of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected their Appeal under the impugned order holding that the dispute pertaining to method of valuation had attained finality only after the decision passed by the Supreme Court on 7-4-2000; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the Appellants had furnished the method of payment of duty in excess only on 16-11-2000 and the refund was sanctioned on 29-11-2000 and as such there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Departmental Representative reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not in dispute that the refund claim was filed by the Appellants on 20th July, 1999 immediately after the Appeal filed by them was allowed by the Tribunal. No doubt the Revenue had preferred the Appeal against the Tribunal's order allowing their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, it cannot be contended by the Revenue that the final documents were furnished by the Appellants only in the month of November, 2000 and as such there was no delay. If such a contention is accepted, the provisions of Section 11BB can be made completely redundant by issuing a show cause notice and seeking certain information/documents. We, therefore, hold that the Appellants are eligible fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
