9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal filed by M/s. British Health Products, 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 Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, the Commissioner (Appeals) also 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 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Charul Baranwal, learned Senior 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly after the same is issued. Therefore, 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
