9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Mishra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The short point required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to refund from 9-2-2001 when the Refund Application was filed by them on 9-2-2001 in pursuance to their appeal having succeeded before the appellate authority. It is the appellant's contention that after f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above Order did not succeed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 2. It is the appellant's contention duly represented by Shri M.N. Biswas, learned Consultant, that the amount in question was deposited as a result of investigations started by D.R.I. Till the refund amount was sanctioned to them, their amount remained blocked with the Revenue and they are entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such, the Application filed by them on 9-2-2001 is required to be considered as complete in all respects. They have also drawn our attention to the case laws on the issue of interest, which are as follows : - (i) 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1997 (22) RLT 327 (SC) in the case of Kuil Fireworks Industries v. Collector of Central Excise & Anr.; (ii) 2003 (153) E.L.T. 290 (Cal.) in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) in the case of CC (Import), Mumbai v. Universal Cables Limited; (xi) 2003 (159) E.L.T. 857 (T) = 2003 (58) RLT 385 (CEGAT - Del.) in the case of Somaiya Organics (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad; (xii) 2003 (157) E.L.T. 408 (T. - LB) = 2003 (58) RLT 360 (CESTAT - LB) in the case of Ram Lubhaya v. C. C., New Delhi. 4. We agree with the above contention of the learned Consultant for the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
