TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its earlier order has opined that petitioner was the Consumer and the money had to be refunded to the petitioner, I am not impressed by that submission at this stage, since it may have to be advanced before the CESTAT in the appeal. Revenue failed to make payment by way of refund of Rs. l 5,16,992/-. If CESTAT concludes that petitioner has not made unjust enrichment, it is needless to say that the Revenue must refund the amount to the petitioner and not to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In that event, petitioner is entitled to interest on the said sum. Since the amount is lying with the revenue from 25-1-2005, and the petitioner is kept away from it, Respondent-State is directed to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 to submit an explanation as to why the refund claim should not be rejected, to which petitioner submitted a reply. Respondent No. 3 rejected petitioner s refund claim by order No. 54/2006, dated 16-3-2006, against which, Appeal No. 81/2006, when filed was rejected by order dated 28-9-2006, where afterwards, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, CESTAT ) registered appeal No. ST/353/2007 and allowed the same by order dated 17-6-2009. This order, it is said, is final and binding. 3. Petitioner, armed with the order of CESTAT made yet another representation for refund of ₹ 15,16,992/-, whence the 3rd respondent by letter dated 27-8-2009, directed it to file a refund claim in Form R supported by document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the said question does not arise for decision making, since CESTAT in its earlier order has opined that petitioner was the Consumer and the money had to be refunded to the petitioner, I am not impressed by that submission at this stage, since it may have to be advanced before the CESTAT in the appeal. 6. Be that as it may, what emanates is the fact that the Revenue failed to make payment by way of refund of Rs. l 5,16,992/-. If CESTAT concludes that petitioner has not made unjust enrichment, it is needless to say that the Revenue must refund the amount to the petitioner and not to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In that event, petitioner is entitled to interest on the said sum. Since the amount is lying with the revenue from 25-1-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
