TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew application is filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Salem to review the order dated 18th June, 2010 passed by this court in W.P. No. 4802 of 2009. By the order under review, this Court gave a direction to the review Petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.45,264, which was wrongly deducted and remitted to the Central Excise Department, within a time frame, but no interest was directed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Counsel for the review application, Mr. K. Thiruvengadam, learned Counsel for the first Respondent and Mr. RM. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for second Respondent. 4. The grounds stated by the review Petitioner was that the first Respondent was not the holder of Service Tax registration as per Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 and he had not filed any Service T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the period from 1st April, 2004 to 31" December, 2004, the said claim was made only on 1st March, 2010. After adjudication, the review Petitioner has passed an order-in-original, dated 17th May, 2010 in Sl.No.103/ 2010 and had rejected the refund claim as it was time barred. Though the second Respondent had received the said order on 22nd May, 2010, the same was not brought to the notice of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity. The Act in which the review Petitioner functions is a self contained code. If the first Respondent seeks any refund, he has to move the authority under the Act. In case, if he does not succeed, he should find a solution by way of an appeal within the said enactment. Since these facts were not brought to the notice of this Court, this Court on the basis of the written instructions given by th....