2011 (10) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....remitted to the Central Excise Department, within a time frame, but no interest was directed to be paid. The order itself came to be made on the basis of the written instructions received from the first Respondent in the writ petition and the second Respondent not having contradicted those facts by filing any counter-affidavit. But, the second Respondent in the writ petition has now come before this Court with this review application.   2. When the review came to be filed with a delay of 52 days, the same was condoned by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2010. When the matter came up on 10th March, 2011, this Court had directed notice to the Respondents including private notice. The private notice was served and proof of service was also fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 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 this Court when the matter was heard before this Court. It is under these circumstances, the order passed by this Court directing to refund the amount requires a review.   5. The first Respondent in his counter-affidavit contended that he had filed the refund application within one year and knowing fully well the pendency of the writ petition, they had passed the order rejecting the request for refund. The Service Tax was deducted wrongly and hence he is entitled for refund of tax. Therefore....