9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In pursuance of the stay order of this Tribunal, the appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Ultimately, the Order-in-Original was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. After the order was passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed a refund claim on 12-10-98, which was rejected by the original adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Central Excise rejected the refund claim of the deposited duty by his Order dt. 21-4-99, by observing that the party is not entitled for refund till the case is finally decided in de-novo proceedings. It is not understood as to why the Assistant Commissioner did not pass the order in de-novo proceedings and instead of finalizing the same, had chosen to reject the refund claim on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the refund of pre-deposit. There is no justification for holding otherwise. 2. Consequent to this order, the Assistant Commissioner allowed interest for 58 days treating the date of refund claim as 14-9-05. An appeal was preferred against this order and the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the payment of interest for 58 days as held by the original adjudicating authority. Hence, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the de-novo proceedings have been completed. There was no demand at all on the date of filing of refund claim. Refund was due on the date of filing refund claim and therefore the claim of the appellant for interest by treating the refund claim as having been submitted on 12-10-98 is to be upheld and accordingly upheld. Learned Consultant has relied upon the following decisions, which I find as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
