9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of Rs. 2,73,076/- imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and confiscated the plant, machinery, building, etc. with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The Central Excise duty was debited by them vide RG-23A Part-II Sl. No. 109, dated 5-7-96 and penalty and fine were paid vide TR6 Challan Nos. 1/96-97 and 2/96-97, dated 5-7-96. Aggrieved by the said order they preferred an appeal before CEGAT and Hon ble CEGAT vide Order No. 3218/97, dated 3-12-97 remanded the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum vide order (original) No. 16/2000, dated 25-9-2000 confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,73,076/- imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court upheld Bombay High Court s ruling in Suvidhe Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) that the amount deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as a condition precedent to hearing an appeal does not bear the character of duty but has character only of security deposit and it ought to have been returned the day appeal is disposed of by authority and hence assessee was entitled to interest @ 15% per annum from 24-1-97 when CEGAT decided appeal to 15-9-2000, when the amount is actually paid. The High Court further held Revenue is not entitled to hold on to the amount deposited as security when matter is remanded for fresh re-adjudication. (b) 2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.), Nelco Ltd. v. U.O.I. (c) 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of CEGAT s remand order dated 3-12-1997 till the date of re-adjudication order dated 25-9-2000. In the re-adjudication order, the original authority (Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum) appropriated the amount deposited by the appellants under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants are aggrieved over the appropriation of the amount deposited under Section 35F against the sum due on account of the de novo adjudication order dated 25-9-2000. 6. The CBEC have issued instructions that for refund of deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, refund applications under Section 11B(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 need not be insisted upon [F. No. 275/37/2K-CX 8A, dated 2-1-2002]. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisions are available on the subject. It is a fact that the amount deposited by the appellant was with the department without any authority from the date of CEGAT s order setting aside Commissioner s first adjudication order till the date of second adjudication order. In the light of Hon ble Supreme Court s ruling, the department is liable to pay interest for the above mentioned period. The appellant has calculated interest at 24%. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if rate of interest as applicable for refund of duty under Section 11B(B) during the relevant period is paid to the appellant. ORDER I allow the payment of interest on pre-deposit amount of Rs. 3,73,076/- for the period from 4-12-1997 to 25-9-2000 at rate applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
