9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder]. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. MCRS/88/VAPI/2005, dated 9-3-2005 by which the order of the original authority No. VAPI DIV./REF/06/2004-05, dated 18-5-2004 was upheld. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The issue involved is as follows : (a) It is claimed that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was pre-deposited by the appellant in pursuance of Tribunal s stay orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat no interest is payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. His findings are reproduced below : 5. I have gone through the records of the case. It is observed by me that the Hon ble Civil Judge, Valsad restrained the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Division - Daman from making payment to the defendant (the Appellant) till the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no specific provision for payment of interest on amount taken as pre-deposit. The learned Advocate also submits that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in sanctioning interest on the delayed return of the deposit. He seeks relief in terms of Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. 5. The learned Advocate is not in a position to specifically quote the section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
