9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making the payment, he reduced the payable amount by Rs.9,04,894/- on the ground that this was due to the Revenue as per the Order-in-Original No.16/D/2009 dated 29.01.09. The appellants filed an appeal against this decision before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 30.09.09 held that the appellants had filed an appeal and stay petition against the decision of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand dated 29.01.09 within the stipulated time limit. As per the Circular issued by CBE &C No.788/21/2004-CX-4 dated 25.05.04, when a stay application has been filed along with appeal, the action of the Assistant Commissioner in appropriating the amount from the rebate claim was not correct. Further, he also held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L-204-CESTAT-MUMBAI] and also the decision in the case of Birla Copper [2006 (206) ELT 620 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. Further, he also relies upon the circular issued by the Board vide Circular No.788/21/2004-CX dated 25.05.04. The learned DR would submit that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all the submissions made by the appellants and he has distinguished the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. He reiterates the arguments and reasons relied upon by the lower authorities. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In this case the order confirming the demand of Rs.9,04,894/- was passed on 29.01.09. Admittedly appellants had filed a stay application and appeal before the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case the refund claim was sanctioned and in accordance with which Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, the same should have been paid. Since it has not been paid and appropriation has been wrongly made when it was not to be made, the appellants become eligible for interest as if the amount has not been paid when the original refund claim was submitted. On this ground alone the rebate claim has to be allowed. Coming to the decisions cited by the authorized representative and which has been distinguished by the learned Commissioner, I find that the decision in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. is definitely applicable to the facts of this case. In the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. the view taken was that if the refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
