9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 - Dated:- 25-10-2013 - Shri P.K. Das, J. For the Appellant : Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate JUDGEMENT Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore both are taken up together. The issue involved in these appeals is the recovery of interest on the erroneous refund sanctioned and paid to the assessee consequent to the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court, which was subsequently set aside by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the appeal of the Revenue. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the assessee are manufacturers of aluminium and articles thereof classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. They claimed be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Adjudication order. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order insofar as the interest is chargeable only from 4.3.1997 (i.e. immediately after the expiry of three months from the order dated 3.12.1996 of Hon ble Supreme Court). The Commissioner (Appeals) revised the calculation for interest to be paid as Rs.18,29,053/-. 4. Revenue filed this appeal before the Tribunal to modify the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) insofar as interest is payable from 26.5.1995 (i.e. from the date of insertion of Section 11AA). Revenue in their appeal quantified the amount of interest as Rs.31,43,219/-. The assessee has also filed an appeal challenging the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act. In the present case, there is no allegation of fraud, collusion or any mis-statement or suppression of fact etc and therefore payment of interest under Section 11AB would not arise. He further submits that Section 11AB was amended with effect from 11.5.2001, which would apply in the case where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously paid, the person is liable to pay interest with the duty as determined under Section 11A of the Act. 6.1 It is also submitted that the payment of interest under Section 11AB would follow by the determination of duty under Section 11A(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.8.1995 to 25.4.2002. It is noted that Section 11AA was introduced only 26.5.1995. 7.1 Show Cause Notice proposed the demand of interest after three months from the date of insertion of Section 11AA of the Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of interest under Section 11AB which was introduced on 28.9.1996. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee is liable to refund the amount as soon as the judgment was pronounced by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 7.2 The learned counsel raises a question that Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act would not apply in this case. On the other hand, the learned AR submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodcraft Products (supra) held that the assessee is liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
