9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 164 (CFS, Mulund (I)/2007(JNCH) dt. ......-6-2007. 2. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 3. Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the refund amount which is due to him was sanctioned by authorities on 19-6-2003 while the actual refund was handed over to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been carefully studied. The claim for interest on account of delay in payment of the refund hinges on the point that the refund which was due from the date of Supreme Court order on 05-3-03 was delayed till issue of cheque on 22-11-2005. The appellants have contended that they were entitled to refund on 10-3-01, the date on which the Supreme Court order were issued, but this appears incorrect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund. Though the appellant has executed a bond, no bank guarantee was executed. It is also on record that the appellant had not challenged the condition of the bank guarantee, as put by the adjudicating authority in the refund order. In the absence of any challenge to such a condition, today the appellants claim that Hon'ble Supreme Court had not insisted upon the requirement of bank guarantee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
