TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new argument that no notice has been issued under Section 11A. In fact the respondents did not even challenge the order of this Tribunal upholding the stand of the Department’s appeal whereby the order of the Tribunal had attained finality and it is to be implemented. Therefore the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that a show cause notice should be issued is contrary to the law and he had no power to pass an order which was in contravention of an order which had attained finality in the absence of an appeal filed against the same - Decided in favour of Revenue. - E/681/2007-SM - Final Order No. 26986/2013 - Dated:- 22-11-2013 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner (AR), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (A) order dated 31-1-2005. Feeling aggrieved the appellants against filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), Hyderabad on the issue of interest on the delayed refund. The Commissioner (A), Hyderabad vide O-I-A dated 31-8-2005 set aside the Assistant Commissioner s order dated 24-5-2005 and allowed the appeal. Consequent to that the appellants filed the refund claim of ₹ 15,45,843/-. This claim was duly verified by the department, and recommended correct amount of ₹ 15,45,043/- as payable. However, the department filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore against the O-I-A dated 31-8-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and requested for grant of stay and to set aside the said order. In the meantim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the order was issued the prescribed time was already over. Revenue is in appeal against the observation that without issue of a show cause notice under Section 11A, the respondents are not liable to pay the excess refund sanctioned to them. 4. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents. However, after hearing the learned AR and going through the records and taking note of the fact that the matter relates to the year 2007, I consider that it is appropriate that the issue is to be decided finally. 5. The learned AR relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Shillong v. Woodcraft Products Ltd. - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Vikas Test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
