9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules. 2. Shri T. Ramesh learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants stated that the final order dated 4-7-2005 has allowed their appeal with consequential relief. In terms of the above order, it was urged that the appellants are entitled for a refund of an amount of Rs. 29,00,612/- but the Assistant Commissioner has sanctioned only Rs. 26,72,780/-. It is the contention of the appellant that they are entitled for payment of interest also in terms of Sec. 11(BB), apart from refund of the entire amount. The learned advocate urged that the bench may issue direction to the central excise authority to implement its order dated 4-7-2005 under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rule. The learned SDR pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (2) of Section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, [not below five percent] and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Board. On such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: Provided that where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking such a decision. In terms of the said final order of the Tribunal the appellant is entitled for interest. Since the provision for grant of interest came into effect only in 1995, in the present case the date of payment of interest will start after the expiry of three months from the date on which Finance Bill 1999 received the assent of the President i.e. 26-5-1995 till the date of payment of the refund amount. As regards the rates of interest, the rates notified at different periods by the Government should be adopted. As regards the amount of refund we find that the original authority has not granted the full amount claimed for the reason that in respect of a part of the amount the appellants had not produced proper evidences for pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
