2007 (8) TMI 516 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of the impugned order and early hearing of the appeal.
2. Rejection of rebate claims by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Order-in-Appeal sanctioning rebate claims but restricting interest payment.
4. Appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order.
5. Interpretation of interest payment for delayed rebate claims.
6. Applicability of case laws cited by both parties.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue filed applications for stay of the impugned order and early hearing of the appeal. The appeal was taken up for disposal after dismissing the stay application with the consent of both parties.

2. The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and export of Apparels/Made ups, filed 98 rebate claims during May 1999 to December 2003, which were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on various grounds.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered sanction of the rebate claims, but the grant of interest was limited to the period of delay beyond three months from the date of each Order-in-Appeal. The assessee claimed interest for the delay beyond three months of filing each rebate claim initially.

4. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, prompting the Revenue to appeal against the impugned order.

5. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of interest payment for delayed rebate claims. The Revenue argued for interest only from the date of Orders-in-Appeal, citing specific case laws. In contrast, the respondents relied on judicial authorities stating interest should be paid for delays beyond three months from the initial claims.

6. The Tribunal found that the case laws cited by the Revenue were not relevant to the current case, as they pertained to different scenarios. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents' position that interest should be paid for delays beyond three months from the initial claims, as supported by judicial authorities and previous judgments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the lower authority's decision to allow interest for delays in payment of rebate claims beyond three months from the respective dates of initial claims. The judgment clarified the correct interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and settled the dispute in favor of the respondents based on established legal principles and precedents.