9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was due after three months from remand order dated 30-4-2002 and not after three months from 29-1-1998, the date of pre-deposit made by assessee – Decided partly in favour of assessee. - C/279/2008-SM - Final Order No. A/11407/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 25-10-2013 - Shri H.K. Thakur, Member (T) Shri Parithosh R. Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri G.P. Thomas, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 135/2008-KDL/Comm (A)/AHD, dated 25-4-2008 under which appeal filed by the appellant before Comm. (A) was dismissed. 2. The issue involved in the present appeal is that a refund of pre-deposit amount of Rs. 25 lacs paid in January, 1998 was sanctioned to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand challenged by the appellants. It was emphasised by the advocate that in the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court, A.P. High Court and Allahabad High Court, interest from three months of the passed by CESTAT, is admissible to the appellants. 4. Sh. G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the amount was paid by M/s. Shantilal J. Jain and there was no authorisation from the appellant or M/s. Shantilal J. Jain in favour of Sh. Shantilal J. Jain and accordingly refund claim was rejected initially and accordingly Comm. (A) rejected appeal filed by the appellant. That afterwards another refund claim of Rs. 25 lacs was filed by appellant which was sanctioned as per OIO KDL/AC/Ref/KPS/333/2007, dated 8-6-2007. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormations as per paras 2 to 4 : (2) As we are all aware the CESTAT has in a number of such cases awarded interest on pre-deposits where its orders have not been implemented and the Department had challenged this and filed Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court. (3) The Board has noted the observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in its order dated 21-9-2004 and has decided that pre-deposits shall be returned within a period of three months of the disposal of the appeals in the assessee s favour. (4) Accordingly, the contents of the Circular No. 275/37/2000-CX.8A, dated 2-1-2002 [2002 (139) E.L.T. T38)], as to the modalities for return of the pre-deposits are reiterated. It is again reiterated that in terms of Hon ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel has rightly relied on the Allahabad High Court s judgment in K.S. Steel Works (supra). In the said judgment the Hon ble High Court has decided that the appellants therein were entitled to refund of pre-deposit on the impugned demand being vacated in a remand order. The judgments of the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Apex Court fully support the impugned order granting interest on refund of pre-deposit for the period of delay beyond three months of the order vacating the demand challenged by the appellants. In the circumstances, the appeals filed both by the Revenue and the assessees fail. The impugned order is sustained. The cross-objections filed by the assessee against the respective appeals by the Revenue are dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
