TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.05.2017. Thereafter, when the appellant approached the Hon ble High Court in review on Miscellaneous application for revival of the application, the Hon ble High Court directed the appellant to pursue the appellate remedy in view of the subsequent Order-in-original dated 19.06.2017, (allowing truncated amount of refund). Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, limitation has to be computed on and from 06.10.2017 (plus the time taken in obtaining certified copy of the miscellaneous order) - thus, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within time. This appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to hear the appeal on merits. - Excise Appeal No. 50317 of 2019-SM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36/2004-Cus. dated 24.05.2004. The appellant had requested for a speaking order which was declined on the ground that adjustment of cost recovery charges is administrative in nature. 3. Against the said order dated 05.10.2005 appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) claiming refund of ₹ 1,59,710/- which was allowed vide order-in-appeal dated 24.04.2006. 4. The appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner for giving the appeal effect of Order-in-appeal dated 24.04.2006. However, the Assistant Commissioner in his Order-in-original dated 16.11.2006, without giving opportunity of personal hearing, sanctioned the lower amount of ₹ 1,11,370/-, further directing adjustment of such amount out of demand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted representation dated 17.05.2017 before the Deputy Commissioner alongwith copy of Hon ble High Court dated 04.05.2017, praying for refund of the amount with interest in terms of Section 35FF read with Section 11BB of the Act. 10. The Deputy Commissioner without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant passed order dated 19.06.2017 granting the truncated refund of ₹ 1,11,370/-. Further, no order was passed relating to payment of interest claimed. 11. Being aggrieved by order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed miscellaneous application No. 524/2017, in the disposed writ application, before the Hon ble High Court on 13.09.2017. The Hon ble High Court by its order dated 06.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod from the date of order-in-original dated 19.06.2017 till the date of miscellaneous order dated 06.10.2017 should have been excluded in view of the directions of Hon ble High Court, read with Section 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act. The appellant was bonafidely pursuing the remedy before the Hon ble High Court in view of the directions of the Hon ble High Court dated 04.05.2017. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the impugned order may be set aside with a direction to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals). 15. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue Shri Y. Singh have relied on the impugned order and further urged that the Hon ble High Court granted condonation of time only for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
