9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not applicable for condonation of delay in filing of appeals or rectification application under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944.The delay in filing of ROM application, therefore, cannot be condoned and the application has to be rejected as time barred. Interest on Refund of Pre deposit - Held that:- As from ROM it is seen that assessee seek interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of pre-deposit i.e. 8-8-2008 till the date of refund of pre-deposit on 18-10-2011. But there is no provision in Central Excise Act, 1944 for interest on pre-deposit from the date of pre-deposit. Section 35FF permits interest only from the date of expiry of three months from the date of communication of the Appellant order to the Department till the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi accordingly vide order-in-original No. 1/08, dated 8-1-2008- (a) confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,13,18,639/- against the Appellant along with interest on it under Section 11AB; (b) imposed penalty of equal amount on the Appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (c) imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on Shri B.K. Sinha, General Manager of the Appellant Company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and (d) ordered confiscation of 369 prefabricated segments valued at Rs. 6,86,81,062/- with option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. One Crore. 1.2 Against this order of the Commissioner, the Appellant company and Shri B.K. Sinha filed appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 14-3-2011. The CWP was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file ROM application before the Tribunal for directions regarding interest on the amount of pre-deposit. 1.6 The Appellant, thereafter, filed this ROM application No. E/ROM/3/12 on 6-1-2012 under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for directions regarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 55 Lakhs. 1.7 Application No. E/COD/29/2012 has been filed for condonation of 124 days delay in filing of ROM, as the limitation period for filing of ROM application under Section 35C(2) is 6 months from the date of the order. 1.8 The Miscellaneous application No. E/Misc./269/2012 has been filed for placing on record the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tribunal-LB) has held that there is no provision under Section 35C(2) for condonation of delay and, therefore, this application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as time barred, and (c) the point regarding direction for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the pre-deposit of Rs. 55 Lakhs is not a point relating to mistake apparent from records, as it is debatable as to whether the Tribunal has power to order interest on pre-deposit from the date of pre-deposit, when the appeal is allowed. 5. Shri Dhir emphasized that absence in the Final Order dated 14-3-2011 regarding refund of the pre-deposit of Rs. 55 Lakhs along with interest is a mistake apparent from records and in the interests of equity and justice, the ROM may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC are not applicable for condonation of delay in filing of appeals or rectification application under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. As regards the plea regarding equity, Hon ble Supreme Court while considering the plea of equity and hardship with regard to limitation period in case of Suraj-urf-Haq Khan others v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, reported in AIR 1959 SC 198 has held as under It is true that rules of limitation are to some extent arbitrary and may frequently lead to hardships; but there can be no doubt that in construing the provisions of limitation, equitable considerations are immaterial and irrelevant and in applying them, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 433 (S.C.) judicial discipline demands that an order passed by a Tribunal or a court, unless on an appeal having been filed before a higher judicial forum, the same have been stayed, have to be implemented. Thus if the appeal filed by some assessee is allowed by the Tribunal and during pendency of appeal, the assessee, in pursuance of some order passed under Section 35F, had deposited some amount, the same, unless, the Tribunal s order has been stayed by some High Court or by Hon ble Supreme Court, has to be refunded and if there is delay in refund of pre-deposit beyond 3 months from the date of communication of the order, in accordance with the provisions of Section 35FF, interest on the amount of pre-deposit is required to be paid at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
