9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law in holding that the said assessee is eligible & entitled to the quantum of interest at the appropriate rate, as was prevailing during the relevant period, from the completion of the date thereof i.e., three (3) months from the date of the filing of the refund claim? 6.2 Whether the said assessee is eligible & entitled to the quantum of interest upon the refund amount which has become due to the said assessee as a consequential relief through the said order of the CESTAT? 6.3 Whether the amount of the said duty, paid under protest, which has been refunded within three (3) months from the date of the said order of the CESTAT, can attract, fetch and earn an interest, at all?" 2. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already been decided by Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order dated 22-9-1999 and the limited scope for which the matter had been restored to file of the Adjudicating Authority was to compute the exact amount to be refunded in cash and by way of credit in Cenvat Account. 5. Thereafter, though the amount of differential duty has been refunded interest was not granted and hence, one more round of litigation ensued. The respondent-assessee succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 30-9-2008/1-10-2008 has upheld the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) and held that in light of Provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), Revenue is required to pay interest from the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the right to refund, which had already crystalised in favour of the assessee, did not exist. The order made by the Tribunal in 2003 merely negatived the stand of the Revenue that the assessee was not entitled to refund of duty due to principle of unjust enrichment. It was not the stand of the Revenue that the assessee was not entitled to refund at all, but the stand was that refund of duty could not be granted due to application of unjust enrichment. This is different from taking a stand that a person is not entitled to refund at all. In fact the order made by the Adjudicating Authority in the second round makes this position more than clear, when it was ordered that the refund of duty is to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
