2017 (11) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for belated sanctioning of the refund claims filed by them. 4.   After reading the list of dates and events, learned counsel submits that the Honble High Court has held in their favour holding that they are eligible for refunds and are to be allowed. He would submit that Revenue has not filed any appeal / Special Leave Petition against the said judgment. Hence, the claim of interest after three months from the date of filing the refund claim needs to be sanctioned to him. He would also draw my attention to the findings of the first appellate authority wherein the first appellate authority has recorded that the adjudicating authority/Assistant Commissioners letter informing the appellant is not an appeable order and only on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allowing the refund on the ground that Rs. 4,36,770/- was available for utilization. 17.10.2001 Commissioner (Appeals) passed an Order in Appeal allowing the refund of Rs. 4,36,437/- except for an amount of Rs. 333 excess claimed 27.12.2001 Appellant filed an application claiming refund of Rs. 4,36,437/- 15.03.2002 Assistant Commissioner vide OIO No. 26/2002 sanctioned the refund of Rs. 4,36,437/-   Department filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal against Order in Appeal No. 1064/1999 dated 27.09.1999 09.08.2002 The Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1051/2002 allowed the appeal of the Department relying on Rule 57F(4) and 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944   Appellant filed a C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3.09.2010 Assistant Commissioner replied stating the interest claimed by the Appellant was already granted through cheque dated 05.12.2008 13.10.2010 Appellant submitted a letter stating they have not received any interest on the refund 26.11.2010 Assistant Commissioner passed an order/letter rejecting interest on refund 01.02.2012 Impugned Order in Appeal in no. 49/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore rejecting the appeal of the Appellant on the ground that the communication of the Assistant Commissioner dated 26.11.2010 is not an order or a decision against which appeal is maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals) 07.03.2012 This Appeal was filed by the Appellant before the Hon'ble Tribunal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its sister concern and that Lamina Suspension Products Limited is manufacturing the goods under the control and supervision of the appellant. 14.   He has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 1996 (84) ELT 161 (SC). There also their Lordships have ruled that there was no supervision over the manufacturing of the goods by the respondents. In the circumstances, we are unable to follow the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. 15.   In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the appellant and the order passed by the original authority in rejecting the claim for refund and the order passed by the T....