Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (11) TMI 315 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
- Refund of pre-deposit along with applicable interest under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
The case involved an application seeking directions for the refund of a pre-deposit made by the appellant, along with applicable interest under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellant had initially deposited Rs.6,00,000/- for a hearing, which was later refunded, but the interest on the pre-deposit was yet to be received. The appellant claimed entitlement to interest for the delay in refund beyond three months of each order of the Tribunal remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. The appellant relied on a circular issued by CBEC allowing interest on delayed refunds, as well as various judicial authorities supporting the claim for interest at 12% per annum. The Tribunal noted similar cases where interest was granted to appellants for delays in refunding pre-deposits, and the CBEC circular specifying the refund timeline and interest payment for delays. After considering the submissions and the circular, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in line with previous decisions. The miscellaneous application was allowed, granting the appellants the requested interest.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case emphasized the entitlement of the appellants to interest on the pre-deposit refund beyond the specified timeline, as per the CBEC circular and previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal ordered the appellants to be paid interest at the rate of 12% per annum, aligning with the prevailing practice in similar cases.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates