9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Ranjana Jha, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein interest is denied to the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant paid certain amount on 31.3.04 under protest. The refund of the said amount was finally sanctioned as per CESTAT order dated 18.4.2012 wherein it was held that appellant is entitled to refund of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sulaki Chenicals Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (310) ELT 511 (Bom)] and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC)]. 4. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned counsel and submits that in this case whether the appellant was entitled to refund or not was settled by this Tribunal on 18.4.12 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), the Honble Apex Court have not considered the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Thermoplastics (P) Ltd. therefore these decisions are per incuriam and therefore cannot be relied. In these circumstances, she prays that impugned order is to be upheld. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. It is not in dispute th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te order allowing such refund. The contention of the learned AR that the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) is per incuriam is contrary to law as the Honble Apex Court is not bound to consider the decision of this Tribunal. The Honble Apex Court has analyzed the issue in detail and thereafter arrived at a decision which is enumerated here as under: "15. In view of the above analysis, our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
