9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly allowed interest on the refund. - E/2433/2007-SM - 534/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 21-4-2010 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: <?xml:namespace prefix = st2 /> Shri I. Baig, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Ramesh Nair, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The facts giving rise to this appeal by the Revenue are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The respondent are manufacturers of photocopier machines chargeable to Central Excise Duty. During the period of dispute, they were charging installation charges from the customers @ Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per machine, which was part of the retail price. In August 1996, the audit while checking the records of the respondent, found that they are recoveri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998 demanding Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 9,46,907/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven) for period from January, 1993 to September, 1997 for non-inclusion of the installation charges in the assessable value. The amount demanded by this show cause notice also included the amount of Rs. 3,17,520/- already paid by the respondent. The show cause notice dated 29th May, 1998 was decided by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 29th November, 2002 by which the demand proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, the refund claim which had been filed on 15th January 1997 was sanctioned to the respondent on 6th March, 2007. This order, however, did not say anything about the interest. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igible to file the refund only from this day and the Department's liability for interest would be only from the date, immediately following the date of expiry of three months from 29th November, 2002, that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed the interest from 16th April, 1997, that is on expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund claim and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 3. Shri Ramesh Nair, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the respondent had paid the duty whose refund has been sanctioned to them on 24th August, 1996 on the basis of an audit objection informed to them, that duty had been paid under protest, that when the issue was not decided they filed the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
