9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India ) and of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Voltas (2004 (9) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ) would apply to the facts of the case. Since Section 27A of the Customs Act itself came into force only in May, 1995 and the appellant has claimed the interest for the period from 1-12-1995 onwards - Interest on refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - C/1232/2009 - A/196/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 12-3-2012 - Shri Ashok Jindal and P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri S.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Kalra, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 233/2009/MCH/AC/2008/Gr.VIIB, dated 7-9-2009 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that the payment made by the appellant in 1994 at the instance of DRI was not a payment of duty in pursuance to an order of assessment but it was merely a pre-deposit. Therefore no interest is payable on refund of deposit and hence the appellants are before us. 3. The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of Rs. 12,58,525/- paid by them was confirmed as duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide order dated 1-5-1996 and whatever they paid at the time of investigation was appropriated towards such duty. Further, the lower adjudicating authority while passing the refund order in December 2008 vide Order No. ACAO/268/P.K./AC/2008-Gr.VII.B, dated 28-12-2008 has also consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Bipin Silk Synthetics [2007 (213) E.L.T. 442] and the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Voltas Ltd., 2005 (179) E.L.T. 29 in support of his contention. 4. The ld. AR appearing for the Revenue on the other hand contends that what has been paid by the assessee was only a deposit and not duty and therefore the appellant is not entitled to interest under Section 27A. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case from the records of the case, it is seen that though the appellant made the payment of the impugned amount at the time of investigation, the said payment was confirmed as duty vide order dated 1-5-1996 and the said payment was appropriated towards duty demand. Therefore there is no doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
