2006 (2) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rejected by way of a letter - No prescribed format for such refund application - Matter remitted to original authority to reconsider - E/658/2004 - 344/2006 - Dated:- 15-2-2006 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri V.G. Ranganathan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Havanur, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eir letter dated 9-1-2004 for refund has to be considered as a refund application. The return of their application for refund by the Dy. Commissioner is not justified. The said return of the refund application has to be treated as an order by the Dy. Commissioner and hence, the appeal filed before the Commissioner is entertainable. The learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal in the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ian Explosives Limited that conveying a decision on a letter for refund has been treated as a decision or an order passed by the adjudicating authority and the same to be appeable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appellants had deposited the duty by mistake of law and there is no prescribed format for filing a refund application. Therefore, they made a request by their letter dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X