9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- respondents did not react against the finding of the authority that his refund claim under the application dated 27-2-97 was premature till 29-11-06 as the quantum of duty liability of the respondents was not determined, Commissioner (Appeals) could not have directed payment of interest and to that extent, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and is set aside, appeal succeeds. The impugned order directing the payment of any interest is hereby quashed and set aside - E/507 of 2007 - 382/2011-EX(PB), - Dated:- 7-4-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri Nitin Anand, DR, for the Appellant. Shri S. Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Kha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand for refund can be made before the said authority. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal which was disposed of by order dated 12-3-99 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal who set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and remanded the matter to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of law. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 3-6-99 came to be issued to the respondents on the ground that the respondents had diverted the imported goods in violation of the said Scheme under which the goods were imported and that the respondents had failed to pay the total duty amount payable in relation to the said goods. Though the matter was contested by the respondents, the adjudicating authority by its orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12-12-2005 and 3-1-2006. On remand of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner, Pithampur by its order dated 20-1-06 granted the refund amounting to Rs. 26,00,815/-. However, no interest was paid to the respondents. Thereupon, the respondents under their letter dated 2-6-2006 again requested for grant of interest on the refund of Rs. 26,00,815/- for the period from 26-5-97 till 20-1-2006. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 31-7-2006 held that since the amount was sanctioned within three months from the date of the application dated 3-1-2006 of the respondents, no interest was due payable. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be allowed by his order dated 12-12-2006 directing pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 4 (Raj.), Plas Pack Industries v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad-III reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 741 and Consolidated Photo Finvest Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. A163 (S.C.) submitted that the refund claim was filed by the respondents on 27-2-97 and therefore, in view of non-refund of the amount within three months therefrom, the interest was rightly held as payable from 27-5-97 and hence the impugned order does not call for any interference. He further submitted that merely because the decision about the duty liability has been made subsequent to the application once it is clarified by the said decision that there was overpayment and certain amount of money belonging to the assessee was already with the Government, it would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount settled by them, with a further observation that the respondent was free to pursue the cause of excess deposit at the appropriate forum refrained from setting aside any of the findings given by the adjudicating authority in its order dated 1-5-2000. Commissioner (Appeals) merely held that in terms of the finding of the Settlement Commission in its final order, the respondents would be entitled for refund but the details were required to be verified to ascertain the correct amount refundable and for that purpose, direction was issued to the adjudicating authority. It is undisputed fact that the respondents did not challenge the said order. There are no cross-objection filed by the respondents in the present appeal. Being so, the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Rama Vision Limited case was in a totally different set of facts. That was on the point that the law requires the interest to be paid from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application till the date of refund. In the case in hand, since the original application was already declared as premature and that finding has attained finality and the quantum for refund having been claimed by the respondents in terms of the order dated 24-12-2004 by filing of details by 3-1-2006, the refund having been made on 20-1-06, it was within the period of three months from the date of application and hence no interest was payable. 10. In J.K. Cement Works case, the application for refund was filed on 3rd Jan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
