9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Anil Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 27/2006, dated 29-3-2006 by which the sanctioned rebate claim has been appropriated towards outstanding arrears of interest said to be due by the assessee. The duty demand pertains to the year 1982 which had been paid by the assessee. During that period, there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t justified as held in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 253 (Tri.-Bang.). In the case of Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B. v. CCE, Cochin - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.-Bang.), a similar view has been expressed by this Bench and set aside the adjustment of demands against interest liability, which had not been determined by any order. In the case of Jay Kay Synthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the records. The appellants preferred rebate claim of Rs. 2,29,433/-, the same has been sanctioned by the Department and there is no dispute about the assessee being eligible for this amount. Instead of making payment of this amount to the assessee, the department informed the assessee that they were due interest with regard to the belated payment of duty pertaining to the period 1982-1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
