9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i B.S.V. Murthy, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, AR, for the Respondent. [Order]. After a visit to the premises of the appellant s company on 2-11-1996 an offence case was registered and proceedings were initiated to demand duty on the basis of consumption of anti static yarn oil during the period from December 1994 to October 1996. Immediately on the day of the visit of the officers itself, the appellant company had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,95,000/- towards duty. On 30-4-1997, the appellant filed a refund claim seeking refund of the amount deposited in view of the fact that no show cause notice had been issued to them till the date and therefore the amount deposited wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before me seeking interest for the period from 1-8-1997 to 15-12-2004. 3. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that in this case the amount was deposited on the date of the visit of the officers because of coercion. No proceedings were initiated till the application for refund was filed. The proceedings were initiated in 1999 which culminated in dropping of the proceedings ultimately. Therefore the amount deposited by the appellant was neither duty nor pre-deposit and was simply an amount illegally collected without authority of law by the department. Therefore as per the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 563 (Tri.-Bang.) = ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel, the learned AR fairly stated that he does not have any contrary decisions to cite. Further, he also left it to the Bench to decide when he was asked whether he would like some time for studying the issue and to find out whether there are any contrary decisions on the same issue. Since the learned AR has left the decision as to whether he needs time to find out contrary decisions also to the Bench, I consider it appropriate that the final decision can be taken today itself. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant. The two decisions cited by the learned counsel are in my opinion covering the issue involved in this case also. In the case of Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd., appellants were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2000 and thereafter appellants claimed a refund which was ultimately refunded on 7-11-2006 without interest. The Tribunal took the view that interest is payable from the date of deposit. In that case also it was held that the amount deposited on 27-1-1997 was without any authority of law and therefore interest is payable and Tribunal also citied the decision in the case of Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. In view of the above two decisions, the appellant is eligible for interest as per the provisions of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 from the date after three months from the date of filing the refund claim since in this case a refund claim had been filed by the appellants after depositing the amount. Accordingly, I hold that appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
