TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 469/- along with interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944 from the date of expiry of three months from the date of submission of the application for refund on 31.03.2008 till the date of payment of the refund amount - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/206/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21247 / 2018 - Dated:- 30-8-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K. Murali, Superintendent ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 09.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One Hundred and Ninety Eight only) for the period January 2005 to September 2007 corroborating the details tabulated by the lower authority in the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and held that he is in agreement with the point that mere rubber stamp affixed on the bills does not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the Notification. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that both the authorities have observed that the declaration in the consignment note in the form of rubber stam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the decision of this Tribunal in the above cited cases relied upon by the appellant. The ratio of the above decisions is applicable to the facts of the case. In the case of Brindavan Phosphates Pvt. Ltd. cited supra wherein the identical issue was involved this Tribunal has held that the declaration contained in the rubber stamp affixed on bills and the consignment notes issued by GTA are valid declaration by GTA and it satisfies requirement of Notification because in Notification no specific format has been prescribed for declaration and it is only the CBEC circular which prescribed such kind of enforcement. Therefore by following the ratios of the above said decision, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
