9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest to the appellant in terms of the circular on the pre-deposit of the delayed refund within two months from today it has to be construed that this Court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Limited which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Court in absence of any statutory provision in the said Act. contention of the Revenue that the Central Government is the only authority to fix the rate of interest and that Section 35FF was brought in by providing rate of interest on payment of pre-deposit delayed refund and quantified the rate of interest to be the same as in Section 11BB would not apply to the petitioner’s case as Section 35FF has been introduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the appellant in spite of holding that the appellant is entitled to interest on the delayed refund. The matter was finally heard and the judgment came to be delivered on August 12, 2011. The appeal was allowed and the Court held that the sum of Rs. 14.98 crore paid by petitioner was by way of pre-deposit and in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC L imited, (2005) 179 ELT 15 (SC) , interest was payable for the period commencing from three months after the final disposal of the matter till the date of refund. The petitioner s case was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court on February 24, 2005 and, therefore, the respondent was directed to pay interest on the delayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the petitioner seeks for clarification and/or modification of the judgment and order dated August 12, 2011 passed by this Court to specify the rate of interest for delay in refund of the amount paid by way of predeposit which according to the petitioner should be @ 12 % per annum as specified in the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that as rate of interest at 12% per annum was determined by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Limited (supra) after taking into consideration a draft copy of the circular proposed by the Central Excise which was placed by the Board on behalf of the Revenue for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court for the payment of interest at what rate and which date thereby the present application is premature and not maintainable. It is further contended that prior to Section 35FF was introduced there was no provision for payment of interest on deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied as provided under Section 35F of the said Act. It is submitted that Section 11BB was amended on 26.5.1995 to introduce payment of interest for delayed refunds and as provided under Section 11BB of the said Act and Central Government, being the only authorised authority has fixed payment of interest @ 6% per annum under the Notification No.67/2003-CE(NT) dated September 12, 2003 and, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period commencing from three months after the final disposal of the matter till the date of refund and thus, in this case interest was payable from May 25, 2005. It appears that the Central Board of Excise and Customs, pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, has already issued a circular bearing No.802/35/2004-CX dated December 8, 2004 specifying the rate of interest in this regard. (emphasis is ours) Therefore, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal below the Court directed the respondent to pay interest to the appellant in terms of the circular dated December 8, 2004 on the pre-deposit for the delayed refund within two weeks. It has been pointed out to us that though the Court had directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Solicitor General after taking instructions made a statement that the Central Board of Excise and Customs proposes to issue a circular in connection with the payment of interest on all such pre-deposits. At the time a draft copy of the proposed circular was handed over to the Supreme Court there was no rate of interest specified in the proposal and, therefore, the Supreme Court awarded interest @ 12% per annum. Therefore, when this Court directed the respondent to pay interest to the appellant in terms of the circular bearing No.802/35/204-CX dated December 8, 2004 on the pre-deposit of the delayed refund within two months from today it has to be construed that this Court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
