9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and for maintainability of appeal pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide final order dated 12-10-1994 was pleased to decide in favour of the appellants by setting aside the demands and impugned order by way of remand. After receipt of the said Tribunal order the appellant in the present case had filed the refund claim for the said sum deposited. The refund claim was never paid to the appellants. However on 9-11-1995, the Jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner, Aurangabad division II, had informed the appellants that the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is being recovered under Section 11A of Central Excise Salt Act for the confirmed demand of Rs. 76,50,193/- covered in Order-in-Original dated 18-7-1995. Being aggrieved by the said Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent had issued a show cause notice-cum hearing notice directing the appellants to show cause to the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad II Division as to why the refund claim should not be restricted to Rs. 10 lakhs i.e. duty amount recovered and the interest of Rs. 8,12,500/- should not be rejected. On due adjudication by Order-in-Original the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad sanctioned refund of Rs. 10 lakhs and rejected interest of Rs. 8,12,500/-. A part amount of Rs. 4,89,843/- was again appropriated against some other unconnected demands which were pending under appeals during the material time and the only balance amount of Rs. 5,10,157/- was paid to the appellant, for which the appellants preferred an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not carry interest. It is seen from the record that amount of pre-deposit was converted into duty by appropriating the same against some other demand which was pending adjudication by all the forums. Ultimately the appellants were successful in the case and the demands were set aside. The deposit under Section 35F then become free for its payment. The board had instructed that even a formal refund application is not required in such case. In case of IPC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1100 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 710 the interest amount is liable to be paid. In the case of CCE v. Reliance Industries Ltd. - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 379 (T) = 2003 (54) RLT 708 it has been held that interest for delay in refunding the pre-deposit amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
