9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 143 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of pre-deposit - Interest on delayed refund - Held that - appellant was entitled to refund of pre-deposit within a period of 3 months from the passing of favorable order. Though the said refund was sanctioned but the same was adjusted against the outstanding demand. As such, for all practical purposes the amount of Rs. 75,000/- deposited by the appellant was not returned to them. Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Nijrang Print Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported as 2002 (10) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD has in an identical circumstances held that the interest would be liable to be paid within a period of 3 months from passing of favorable orders. To the same effect is the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L & T Ltd. Vs. CC Ahmedabad 2005 (8) TMI 158 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI as also in the case of Steelco Gujarat Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara 2008 (7) TMI 248 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Claim of interest in respect of refund of pre-deposit made by the appellant. Analysis: 1. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to the claim of interest in relation to the refund of a pre-deposit made by the appellant. The appellant became entitled to the refund of the pre-deposit upon the success of their appeal as per Tribunal Order No. 157/2005-C dated 17.1.2005. 2. The application for refund was filed on 19.4.2005, and the refund was granted but was adjusted against an outstanding demand. Subsequently, the demand against which the refund was adjusted was quashed in separate proceedings. The Revenue granted the refund to the appellant along with interest from the date of the Tribunal's order dated 1.7.2008. However, the appellant contends that interest should have been paid within 90 days from the date of the original order on 17.1.2005. 3. The issue at hand has been settled in previous legal precedents. The appellant was entitled to the refund of the pre-deposit within 3 months from the date of the favorable order. Even though the refund was sanctioned, it was adjusted against the outstanding demand, effectively not returning the deposited amount to the appellant. Legal cases such as Nijrang Print Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI and decisions of the Tribunal in cases like L & T Ltd. Vs. CC Ahmedabad and Steelco Gujarat Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara, have established that interest should be paid within 3 months of the favorable order. 4. Following the established legal principles, the judgment sets aside the impugned order and allows the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The original adjudicating authority is directed to quantify the interest by considering the order dated 17.1.2005 and the subsequent refund application as relevant dates. 5. The judgment was pronounced in court on 18/01/2013, disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellant and directing the calculation of interest in accordance with the legal precedents cited. This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.
|
