- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Insofar as the claim of refund of the amount in cash, which has been rejected by the Tribunal is concerned, it also calls for no interference.
(2.) Learned Counsel submits that the appellant had also claimed interest under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the refund claimed on 1-6-2001 which was sanctioned to the appellant in January, 2003 and January, 2004. He points out that when this contention was taken note of by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has not dealt with the same at all in the impugned order.
(3.) Grievance of the appellant seems to be justified. We find that this contention is specifically noted in para 2.3 of the impugned judgment but there is no finding on the same by the Tribunal. Likewise, the Commissioner had also not dealt with this aspect.;