TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subscribe to the reasons given in the impugned order which has only upheld the Order-in-Original for rejecting the refund claim. I also find that the above refund claim of the appellant is very much in order, within the prescribed time and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/40214/2020-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 41451/2021 - Dated:- 30-3-2021 - Shri P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FOR APPELLANT : Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate FOR RESPONDENT : Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Superintendent (AR) ORDER A Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2006 was issued alleging clandestine removal, etc., and thereby proposing a duty demand of ₹ 23,13,850/- with appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well, however, chose to file a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking stay of operation of the order of the Settlement Commission supra. Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras was pleased to grant an ad-interim order of stay as prayed for by the Revenue, vide its order dated 09.04.2007 and further, vide its order dated 11.09.2007, the Hon ble High Court was pleased to pass an order granting absolute stay as regards refund amount was concerned. The above order of the Hon ble High Court was enjoyed by the Revenue upto 22.10.2018 on which date the Hon ble High Court dismissed the above writ petition of the Revenue at the request of the Revenue. 3.1 The appellant vide another letter dated 03.05.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the assessee had chosen to seek refund only in the year 2019, thus the refund claim arising consequent to the said order of the Settlement Commission which should have been filed before one year from the relevant date as specified in explanation B (ea) to Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. [sic (ec)], is barred by time. 3.3. Finally the Dy. Commissioner proposes to reject the refund claim as time barred. Vide Order-in-Original dated 23.09.2019, the adjudicating authority after considering the explanation of the appellant, however, rejects the refund claim which order also came to be upheld vide impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.21/2020 dated 14.02.2020, against which the present appeal has been filed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest for refund dated 21.12.2006, whereby the appellant also requested for adjustment of interest from the refund due to it; refund having been worked out by the Settlement Commission itself. This aspect has been ignored in the show cause notice as well as in Order-in-Original, but however, even though the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed the appellant s above letter, still no order has been made thereon. Both the authorities chose to act on the subsequent request of the appellant dated 03.05.2019, which is only a reminder of the refund legally due, to it. Had there not been the request for refund dated 21.12.2006, then perhaps the appellant had no case. 6. In view of my above observations, I have no hesitations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
