2016 (11) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Jas Sanghavi i/b M/s. PDS Legal for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. After having heard Mr. Bangur at some length and perusing the order under challenge, we are of the view that the respondent/assessee accepted the order-in-original dated 7th November, 1997. The demand under that order was restricted to Rs. 72,84,929/-. Penalty was also imposed. 2. The demand in the show cause notice was Rs. 1, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... having been denied, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). That was dismissed on 26th July, 2005. However, when the assessee approached the tribunal, the tribunal allowed it on the basis of a view taken by the tribunal that on coming into force of section 11- BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the interest is payable on delayed refund. Such was also a view taken earl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in the contention of Mr. Bangur. We do not see how the order of the tribunal raises any substantial question of law. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed. 6. In any event, we do not think that the questions of law as proposed at page 6 of the paper book arise at all from the order of the tribunal. A distinct point is argued before the tribunal and the questions as proposed at page .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X