TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opadhaya, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. AT/BEL/31/2006 dated 31-1-2006. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the recovery of erroneous refund from the appellant. The appellant was sanctioned refund vide order-in-original No. V(173-S) 18-66/98-99 dated 24-6-1999; V(173-S) 18-81/98-99 and V(173-S) 18-80/98-99 both dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund was sanctioned to the appellant. In the absence of issuing the show cause notice within the time limit as provided under Section 11A, today the revenue cannot recover the amount by issuing show cause notices belatedly. He relies upon the Board Circular No. 423/56/98 dated 22-9-1998. The ld. SDR reiterated the finding of both the authorities. 4. Considered the submissions made by both sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable. In the premises herein above I find that the lower authority has correctly ordered for recovery of refund claims erroneously sanctioned to them and the impugned order has to he upheld. 6. It is seen from the above reproduced portion of the order that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that on the plea of time-bar issue, the appeal is not sustainable. He also relies upon the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e totally different than the facts of the case before me. The facts of the case before me very clearly pointed out that the revenue was aware of the fact that the appellants were granted refund in 1998 and 1999 and should have protected the cause of revenue by issuing the show cause notice immediately. The case of the revenue is squarely covered against them by the CBE C Circular No. 423/56/98-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
