TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led beyond the time prescribed for filing appeals before that forum. In the order-in-appeal No. 285/2005-C.E. dated 13-12-2005, the Commissioner (A) upheld the order of the lower authority rejecting claim for cash refund of Rs. 2,62,709/- made by NRTPL. 2. In a nutshell, the facts are that a demand of Rs. 9,65,230/- had been raised against the appellants vide Order No. 164/96 dated 21-3-1996 of the Assistant Commissioner, Erode. The demand related to inadmissible Modvat credit availed. Following orders of the Commissioner (A), dated 26-11-1996 the appellant made pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 7,36,997/- for considering its appeal. Disposing the appeal filed before it, the Commissioner (A) allowed relief of Rs. 1,69,888/- vide his order-in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e found that the impugned amount had been pre-deposited in cash and the appellants were eligible for refund of the said amount in cash. The refund of the impugned amount was not governed by Section 11B of the Act. He also found that the appellants had failed to challenge the first order of the Dy. Commissioner for appropriate modification before the Commissioner (A) in time. Therefore, though the assessee was eligible for grant of the refund in cash, he could not grant them the relief sought owing to the technical snags entailed by NRTPL's failure to file appeal in time. 5. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that the impugned amount being pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act, the assessee w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute as regards this finding. Therefore the Appeal No. E/661/06 filed by NRTPL is dismissed. 7.2 As regards the appeal against the Order No. 285/2005-C.E., dated 1342-2005, I, find that it is nobody's case that the appellants were not entitled to refund in cash of an amount of Rs. 2,67,709/- deposited on 16-12-1996 in terms of Section 35F of the Act. Once the proceedings before the appellate authorities were finally concluded in favour of the appellants, NRTPL should have been granted refund of Rs. 2,67,709/- on their filing reliable intimation of the details without their having to file any refund claim in terms of Section 11B. These are the instructions of the CBEC. Unnecessarily, the application was dragged into unproductive and unjustif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidering that the original order in the instant case was an offshoot of an illegal order. The Commissioner (A) was competent to allow the appeal and thus the refund in view of the binding circular of CBEC. 7.4 A constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Dhiren Chemicals Ltd. [2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] decided that, regardless of the interpretation that it had placed on a phrase, if there were circulars issued by the CBEC which placed a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation would be binding upon the Revenue. Thus the Apex Court recognized the primacy the CBEC Circulars enjoyed in interpreting law by officers of Revenue. In CC v. IOC Ltd. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)] the Apex Court held as follows: '....