9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019(R) dated 03.04.2019 passed by the second respondent. 3. By the Impugned Order, the second respondent has partly allowed the refund of amount, pre-deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 together with interest and has rejected the refund claim for a sum of Rs. 95,06,778/-. Operative Portion of the Impugned Order reads as under:- "29. I hereby sanction the refund of Rs. 12,40,493/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Three only) being the refund of Rs. 10,00,000/- pre-deposit made by them under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with the interest of Rs. 2,40,493/- to the Institute for Water Studies, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT), South Zonal Bench at Chennai. The CESTAT vide Final Order No.41024/2014 dated 31.12.2014, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner with consequential relief if any, admissible in accordance with law and also held that there shall be no demand for the period before 18.04.2006. 8. It is in this background, the petitioner has filed refund claims for the tax paid during the period and pre-deposited the amount pursuant to Order-in-Original No.30/2004 dated 07.04.2004. 9. While refund of the pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 has been allowed, however, as far as the balance refund for a sum of Rs. 95,06,778/- has been rejected by the second resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that was paid on the reimbursable expenses. The claim has not been substantiated by the petitioner. 2. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merits in challenge the impugned order. However, one opportunity can be given to the petitioner to produce the documents before the respondents to substantiate that petitioner was indeed entitled for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 95,06,778/-. 3. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order. It is made clear that, it is the last opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim. Since the impugned order was passed in the year 2019, the respondent shall pass order as expeditiousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
