9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - These appeals were filed by the assessee claiming interest on interest. 2. The appellant (assessee) had deposited an amount of Rs. 31,52,256/- with the Department on 31-1-1997 (under protest) towards interest for alleged violation of conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992, but they obtained refund of this amount f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Assistant Commissioner and the latter's order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate Commissioner's order came to be set aside by this Tribunal and, consequently, the assessee was paid the amount of Rs. 3,27,858/- as interest by the Assistant Commissioner for the delay in granting the refund. Subsequently, claiming support from the Supreme Court's judgment in Sandvik Asia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of these appeals and claimed support from the following two orders of the Tribunal viz. VBC Industries Ltd. v. C.C., Chennai [2005 (192) E.L.T. 275 (Tri.-Bang.)] and VBC Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. & C., Visakhapatnam [2008 (225) E.L.T. 375 (Tri.-Bang.)]. The ld. Counsel also argued that the Tribunal's decision in Sun Pharmaceuticals case was not applicable. 5. Ld. JCDR submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. We also note that, in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Larger Bench had also considered and distinguished the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi [254 ITR 606 (SC)] before taking the above view. Therefore the view taken by the Tribunal's Division Bench relying on the apex court's judgment in Narendra Doshi's case cannot be considered as a precedent. The apex court's de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
