2010 (5) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Respondent. [Judgment]. - The Court : The petitioners in this Art. 226 petition dated July 27, 2004 are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated November 12, 2003, Annexure P5 at p.49, directing the authority making the order in original to decide afresh their refund claims under provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The first petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioners filed application under s. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 for refund of the countervailing duty. By the order in original the refund claims were turned down on the ground of limitation. By the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) remitted the matter for fresh decision under provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Mr. Chaudhury, counsel for the petitioners, has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, claim that they are entitled to interest from the date of deposit. 6. After considering the cases of the parties stated in the petition and the opposition and hearing their counsel, I am of the view that the authority making the order in original was not right in holding that the refund claims were barred by limitation and the appellate authority was not justified in remitting the matter....