9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the rebate claim had been filed for deciding the quantum of interest. - E/907/10 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2011 - Hon'ble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Appellant : Shri K.D. Dholakia, Dy. G.M. Respondent : Shri R.S. Srova, JDR Per: Mr. B.S.V. Murthy: The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. They filed two rebate claims for duty paid on the goods exported as per the provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for an amount of Rs.39,29,404/- which was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 28.02.09. However, while making the payment, he reduced the payable amount by Rs.9,04,894/- on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the original appropriation order appropriating the demand amount when the stay application was pending itself was wrong. Consequent to this wrong order the amount of Rs.9,04,894/- which was not a demand recoverable during the relevant time and which has become non recoverable at all in view of the appeal being allowed by Commissioner subsequently, the interest is liable to be paid from the date of filing the refund claim and not from the date of three months after the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that appropriation was wrong. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. [2010-TIOL-204-CESTAT-MUMBAI] and also the decision in the case of Birla Copper [2006 (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is required as per the Board#s instructions and departmental officers are bound to follow the Board#s instructions. The appropriation of the amount itself was wrong at the time when it was made and if this was not done and the order had been passed in accordance with law, the amount would have been received by the appellants. Consequently the amount of Rs.9,04,894/- has remained with Revenue till date. When the whole issue involved in the dispute between the Revenue and the appellant relates to refund claim only and a part of the refund claims has not been paid after the same has been sanctioned, the interest under Section 11BB is attracted as per the law. In this case the refund claim was sanctioned and in accordance with which Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
