Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2021 (4) TMI 1076

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity. They challenged the order of the original adjudicating authority before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the said order rejecting the refund claim and remanded the matter. He argued that while remanding the matter, in para 5.4 of the order, Commissioner (Appeals) had directed refund of penalty along with interest. He argued that in the remand proceedings the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund and interest to the appellant. The Revenue challenged the sanctioned order before Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the interest sanctioned. The Commissioner (appeals) set aside the order of the original Adjudicating Authority again. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel argued that in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner (Appeals) its original remand order dated 03.07.2017 has observed as follows:- "5.4. I further find that the adjudicating authority has merely mentioned the legal position of Section 35FF without discussion how it makes its impact upon the instant case. As contested by the appellant, the consequential refund claim in respect of said CESTAT Order dated 26.03.2008 for setting aside the penalty was filed on 24.4.2008. Therefore, I find that the effectual date from which interest is due to the appellant under these circumstances shall be on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of original refund application. In this context, it is significant to refer to Board's Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX, dated 1-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section. It cannot be said that Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law in that case. Whereas in the case of M/s. Medico Lab Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was dealing with the issue of remand only and after considering the issue in detail, Hon'ble High Court had come to the conclusion that the Commissioner has powers to remand. In view o the fact there are contradictory decisions of the Tribunal other than the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana there is no other decision holding a contrary view to that of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Medico Lab, I conclude that as far as....