9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Refund itself arose consequent to the finalization of provisional assessment by the Asst. Commissioner. While sanctioning the refund claim, the Asst. Commissioner adjusted the amount against the arrears along with interest due from the appellants in respect of certain Orders-in-Original which were not covered by any stay. However, on finalization of the appeals against those original orders, the adjusted amounts were not refunded. Part of the amounts was refunded. Interest under Section 11BB was also not considered. Therefore, the appellants went in appeal to the Commissioner (A). 2. The Commissioner (A) relying on the decision of the Tribunal of Calcutta Bench reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 78 in Tisco Ltd. v. CCE held the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be paid. In the appellant's case, the refund was sanctioned but not paid. The following case law was relied on Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Vipor Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. UOI - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 511. In the above case, it was held that the assessee is entitled to rebate claims without any adjustments and even the Commissioner (A) accepted that illegal adjustments were made. The authorities are bound to pay the rebate claims to the petitioners with statutory interests. The ratio of the above case is squarely applicable. (iii) The appellants contend that Section 11 and Section 11BB are not mutually exclusive. When refund was not paid, though sanctioned, Section 11BB is attracted. If the adjustment is done as per Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 364, wherein refund amount alongwith interest under Section 11BB is payable. 6. In the course of personal hearing, the learned Advocate brought to our notice the following case laws in support of the appellant's contention for entitlement to interest under Section 11BB. (i) CCE, Jaipur v. Instrumentation Ltd. - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 518 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) National Steel Industries Ltd. v. UOI - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 616 (M.P.). (iii) CCE, Jaipur v. Indian Shaving Products Ltd. - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 650 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) CCE, Indore v. Girdharilal Sugar Allied Industries Ltd. - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 350 (Tri.-Del.) (v) Executive Engineer KSEB v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963)] to levy such duty or require the payment of such sums may deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to the person from whom such sums may be recoverable or due which may be in his hands or under his disposal or control, or may recover the amount by attachment and sale of excisable goods belonging to such person; and if the amount payable is not so recovered, he may prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount due from the person liable to pay the same and send it to the Collector of the District in which such person resides or conducts his business and the said Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
