9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal has been listed on several occasions viz. on 7.9.2012, 4.10.2013, 7.2.2014, 9.5.2014 and 19.3.2015, but the appellant repeatedly failed to appear before the Bench nor they have submitted any document or adjournment application. The appeal being very old, and also appellant is not pursuing the appeal, therefore appeal is taken up for disposal on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Final Order No.1058/2005 dt. 29.7.2005 set aside the LAA order dt. 28.11.2002 and allowed the Revenue appeal. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of recovery of Rs. 2,25,044/- erroneously sanctioned along with interest vide order dt. 28.4.2006 and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 1.9.2006 upheld the OIO by relying on above Tribunal's final order dt. 29.7.2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt filed CMA before Hon'ble High Court, Madras and obtained an interim stay against Tribunal's Final Order No.1058/2005 dt. 29.7.2005. The appeal was kept pending as the CMA was not disposed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, this Bench vide note order dt. 9.5.2014 and 19.3.2015 directed both sides to ascertain the status of the CMA pending before the High Court. When the case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the expiry of six months from the relevant date, in the manner prescribed and the application should be accompanied by such documents or other evidence to establish that the duty of excise has been paid. Second proviso to Section 11-B (1) provides that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty of excise has been paid under protest. On the facts noted above, admittedly, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly rejected by the adjudicating authority in his order dt. 30.5.2001 on limitation which is upheld by Tribunal in Final order dt.29.7.2005 and Hon'ble High Court. By respectfully following the order of Hon'ble High Court (supra), I hold that the demand of recovery of erroneous refund with interest is upheld. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and appeal is dismissed. Operative par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
