TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture and vide order dt. 15.03.2000, this Tribunal held that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Thereafter, on 11.09.2000, the appellant filed the refund claim of the duty already paid under protest. A show cause notice dt. 04.08.2001 was issued to the appellant proposing the rejection of refund claim. On 04.01.2002, the refund claim was partly rejected. The appellant filed the appeal against the said order before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt. 27.05.2004 rejected their appeal on the ground that the refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, a reminder letter was filed on 17.11.2017 to the department and on 21.11.2017, the Assistant Commissioner again wrote the letter to the appellant the issue of interest has been decided vide order dt. 17.01.2017 and if you are aggrieved, the appeal can be filed against the order. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal on 11.01.2018 before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected their appeal as time barred on 05.06.2018. Hence, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in fact the appellant was not required to file the application for refund on 07.11.2016 as the Revenue was required to give the refund in terms of the order dt. 23.09.2016 of this Tribunal automatically along with inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be challenged before the higher forum. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.01.2018 is barred by limitation and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal rightly. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On going through the impugned order, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the merit of the case whether the appellant is entitled to claim of interest or not? The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has entertained the issue of limitation whether the appeal filed by the appellant before him on 11.01.2018 is barred by limitation or not, in which the appellant has challenged the order dt. 17.01.2017. Admittedly after receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time consumed before the adjudicating authority by the appellant is required to be excluded in terms of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 for limitation purposes. 8. I have gone through the decision of Khamdhenu Ispat Ltd (supra). In that case also although the appellant pursued the remedy before the adjudicating authority but when the adjudicating authority advised the appellant to file an appeal before the higher forum against the order passed adjudicating authority earlier and thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal before the higher forum. In that circumstance, the time consumed by the appellant for pursuing the remedy before the adjudicating authority is required to be reduced in terms of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¿à¤²à¤¾ यमà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤¨à¤—र दूरà¤à¤¾à¤· : 260061 दिनांक : 22.06.2017 40 0. IV(84)11/RFD/YPI/Tech./YNR/2017/3-72- 22/08/12 To Sir, M/s Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Ltd., Sardana nagar, Ambala Road, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar - 135003 Sub:- Refund of interest on refund of Rs. 28,28,449/-- reg. Please refer to your refund application dated 25.01.2017, claiming interest amounting to Rs. 29,98,233/- on refund of Rs. 28,28,449/-. In this regard, it has been noticed that you have already claimed interest while filing your initial refund application dated 08.11.2016 which stands decided vide an appealable OI....