9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OIO No. KDL/AC/Ref/KPS/333/07, dated 8-6-2007. Appellant demanded payment of interest on delayed payment of refund from January, 1998 till the date of payment of refund amount under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 which was rejected by the original adjudicating authority under order dated 27-11-2007. Appeal filed against O-I-O dated 27-11-2007 was rejected by the first appellate authority under O-I-A dated 25-4-2008 on the ground that provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 limit the interest liability to a period after three months from the date of filing refund application. 3. Sh. Paritosh Gupta (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that deposit of amount was made on 29-1-1998 during investigation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us argued by him that interest is not payable from three months from CESTAT order dated 30-4-2002 when the case was remanded to the lower authority by setting aside the order appropriating the pre-deposit made. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. In the present appeal a pre-deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs was made by the appellant on 29-1-1998 during the course of an investigation conducted against the appellant. The case was decided by the Commissioner against the appellant under OIO No. KDL/Commr/75/2000, dated 30-10-2000 appropriating the pre-deposit made by the appellant. CESTAT vide order Nos. C.1/1198-1227/2002-WZB, dated 30-4-2002 set aside the OIO and remanded the case back to the commission for de novo adjudication. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s again reiterated that in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order such pre-deposit must be returned within 3 months from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal/Court or other Final Authority unless there is a stay on the order of the Final Authority/CESTAT/Court, by a Superior Court." 5.2 CESTAT Chennai in its judgment in the case of Sowbaghya Lakshmi Silicate v. CCE, Trichy (supra) has also held as follows in para 5 : "5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and the case records. The various judicial authorities relied on by the ld. counsel for the appellants support the impugned orders. It was held in these decisions that interest on amounts deposited by the assessees had to be granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the respective appeals by the Revenue are dismissed on merits." 5.3 In this order passed CESTAT, Chennai, in the case of Sowbaghya Lakshmi Silicate v. CCE, Trichy (supra) reliance was also placed on the orders passed by Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. I.T.C. Ltd. [2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)], Allahabad High Court in the case of K.S. Steel Works v. UOI [1996 (83) E.L.T. 29 (All.)], A.P. High Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. UOI [2006 (193) E.L.T. 278 (A.P.) = 2007 (7) S.T.R. 615 (A.P.)] etc. The ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Courts is that in case of remand also when refund of any pre-deposited amount accrues, then interest liability will also start from three mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
