TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest claim of appellant is that they have informed department for disclaimer of interest – There is no statutory provision regarding filing of any undertaking or disclaiming interest on refund amount – There is no dispute that refund was sanctioned almost after two years from date of filing of application – Therefore, appellant is entitled for interest – On very issue of interest on refund, Supreme Court in case of Ranbaxy [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India] held that wherever there is delay in sanction of refund beyond three months from date of application, interest has to be paid to claimant – Thus, matter remanded to original adjudicating authority to consider claim of interest afresh – Appeal allowed by way of remand – Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 23-7-2012 informing the Assistant Commissioner of Customs that they will not claim interest on the delayed sanction of refund claims and requested for sanction of refund claims expeditiously. Subsequently, the appellant vide their letter dated 9-1-2013 withdrawn their aforesaid letter dated 23-7-2012. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order rejected the appeal. Hence, the appellant is before me. 3. None appeared for appellant, however the appellant, vide their dated 9-12-2014 requested this Bench to decide the issue on merits after taking into consideration the various submissions made in the appeal memorandum. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. 5.2 As regards the undertaking given by the appellant for disclaiming of interest and subsequently withdrawn thereof, I am of the opinion that since the procedure is not mandated in the law, the same cannot be given any effect to. 5.3 As regards the ground of the impugned order that there was deficiency in the documents, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded as under : However, the appellant is not explaining anywhere as to whether all the documents demanded by the department, were in fact required to process the claim or not. It is also not understandable as to why this issue was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner in charge, for suitable remedial action. The Refund order also does not specify which documents w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
