TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mishra, for the Appellant Mr. Pradeep Jetley, for the Respondent ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. Following question of law arises for consideration of this Court: "Whether after passing an order of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding afresh the refund claim of the Appellant, CESTAT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Authority was required to keep in mind the fact that the Appellant is a Government of Goa Undertaking and if additional documentary evidence was needed, the same ought to have been requisitioned instead of summarily rejecting the refund claim. 4. Revenue preferred an Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "CESTAT") against the said judgment and order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were not produced by the Appellant. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the issue whether the Appellant was entitled to interest or the claim of refund was required to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority and therefore, while passing the order of remand, the CESTAT could not have concluded the issue of entitlement of the Appellant to interest on the refund clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest on refund claim should be granted, there was no reason for the CESTAT to have decided the issue of entitlement of the Appellant to claim interest on the refund claim. In fact, the adjudication on the question, whether the Appellant is entitled to refund is not yet made. In the event, the Adjudicating Authority is inclined to grant refund, the fact that at the relevant time necessary docu....