TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this stage is beyond the powers of this Tribunal - impugned order is correct and legal - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - C/30954/2016, C/30658/2017 to C/30670/2017 - Final Order No. 30666/2017, 30672-30684/2017 - Dated:- 29-5-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Shri P. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER When these applications for COD were called out, it was pointed out by Ld. Counsel that these are supplementary appeals, as the first appellate authority by common impugned order has disposed off 14 applications and the appellant has filed appeal No. C/30954/2016 in time and is listed for final disposal in today's cause list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, as the provisional assessments were still not finalised. Subsequently, after getting an order in his favour, appellant filed an application for refund of amount alongwith interest from the revenue authorities in the year 2015. The revenue authorities sanctioned refund claim of ₹ 20.00 lakhs but rejected the claim of interest. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an order before first appellate authority. The First appellate authority also did not agree with the contentions raised as to the claim of interest and rejected the same. Hence these appeals: 5. It is the claim of Ld. Counsel that revenue authorities have admitted that they have retained this amount of ₹ 20.00 lakhs from 1998. He would submit that once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Counsel of appellant in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd [2006(196) E.L.T. 257(S.C), it is noticed that in those cases, the demands were paid by appellant as advance tax and subsequent reassessment having been in favour of appellant wherein refund was to-be granted to the petitioner therein interest claim was allowed. Further, it is to be noticed that the said judgment of the Apex Court in respect of the provisions in Income Tax Act 1961 which provided for interest in the Act itself, in the facts of that case. 9. Further, in the case of ONGC Ltd., the facts were very much different inasmuch the amounts were deposited by ONGC during the pendency of proceedings, hence the Apex Court exercising their-s inherent powers granted interest to M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
