9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned here-in-above have filed appeal against Order-in-Original No. 42/Refund/2005-06/D.C./Mulund dated 25-7-2005 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Mulund sanctioning a refund of Rs. 1,25,34,988.97 and crediting it to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11C of the Act and holding that the appellants were not entitled to any interest under Section 11BB of the Act. 2. It is conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of the Supreme Court order dated 18-3-2004. (v) On the above grounds, it was prayed that the lower authority may be directed to sanction interest of Rs. 1,64,93,425/- on the principal amount of Rs. 1,27,68,517.97. 3. The facts in brief are that the appellants were distributors of one M/s. New India Industries Ltd. (NIIL). M/s. NIIL had a dispute with the Department regarding valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund was granted by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 31-10-1997. The Department filed appeals against the said order and ultimately a three judge Bench of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) decided the issue in favour of the Department. It was concluded by the Court that - Having come to the conclusion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at the time of hearing. The lower authority has proceeded on the basis that the amount of refund amounting to Rs. 1,25,34,988.97 is required to be formally sanctioned and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 9-5-97 . This was patently wrong. The Supreme Court having held that the refund application dated 11-2-1997 was time barred (supra), the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
