9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders contained price variation clause, and thus they had paid excise duty on cylinders on the prices provisionally given. The Oil industry finalized the prices downwards resulting in the reduced value/price. The assessee filed the refund claim of excess duty paid to the tune of Rs. 39,40,086/- (1-7-1999 to 31-3-2004) under Section 11B of the CEA. The claim was rejected as it was filed after one year (time-bar) vide O-I-O No. 20/2004, dated 13-7-2004. Aggrieved by the order, they appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide O-I-A No. 11/2005(HI)-C.E., dated 31-1-2005, set aside the said orders of the Asst. Commissioner. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 39,40,086/- vide his O-I-O dated 21-4- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmediately after the expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty and not payment of interest immediately after the expiry of 3 months from the date of payment of such duty till the date of refund. 2. The O-I-O No. 4/2006, dated 13-1-2006 was reviewed and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the appeal filed by the Revenue after review. 3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that after the refund was sanctioned, instead of filing the appeal the Department should have issued a show cause notice under Section 11A for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by a superior authority, that would itself require an assessee to make restitution of the sum that Revenue had refunded. Therefore, in this case, after the respondents lost the case before the Tribunal and this Tribunal decided that appeal filed by the Revenue was to be allowed, the respondents should have refunded the excess amount on their own. I find that not only they have not paid back the amount but they have put up a 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 (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
