9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an appeal challenging the order made on 11-7-2006 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 2,79,675 sanctioned to the appellant by the lower authorities. The reasons given for this rejection are contained in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner which are as follows:- "12. I find that the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law "Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is correct in holding that provisions relating to the refund of Central Excise duty as enumerated under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 including provisions of unjust enrichment is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case or not ?" 13. I thus find that the Assistant Commissioner in sanctioning the refund claim had followed an order which is st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,79,675 sanctioned to M/s. Bharti Hexacom India Ltd., Jaipur." 2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that by rejecting the refund claim, the Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction and he has not honoured the Tribunal's order dated 26-6-2003. Further, it was argued that the said Tribunal's order is still unmodified by any higher authorities and which remains the law of the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a competent Court. The court, further observed that if this healthy rule was not followed, the result would only be undue harassment to assessee and heirs in administration of tax laws. 3. According to the learned Departmental Representative the Assistant Commissioner has fully complied with this Tribunal's order. The learned Commissioner in para 14 of the impugned order had clearly stated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
