2001 (8) TMI 767

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. -  This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 1-2-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the Order-in-Original dated 11-6-1997 passed by the Assistant Collector sanctioning the refund claim of Rs. 46,97,392/- to the respondents. 2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... questioned the validity of order of Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 4-7-1995 modified that order to the extent of granting exemption under Notification No. 134/86, dated 17-12-1986 to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed the refund claim for Rs. 73,46,987/- vide letter dated 31-8-1995 but that letter was returned to them and they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no show cause notice under Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act was required to be served on the respondents for recovery of the amount for which they had sought the refund, as there had been no actual payment erroneously or otherwise, to them by the Department. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the othe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtment for claiming the refund and for having not done so, the claim of the Department has become time-barred. This view of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the face of it is erroneous in law. Even the ld. Counsel has conceded to this. The Counsel has rather requested for remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the case on merits in accordance with the ratio of law laid down b....