9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative Per: H.K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against OIA No.PJ/89/VDR-II/2013-14, dt.20.05.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara as First Appellate Authority upholding OIO No.Ref/Div.Wag/10/11-12, dt.06.02.2012. 2. Ms.Harpinder Sandhu (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that an amount of Rs. 9,45,255.00 was paid by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 225.00. That Appellant sought for refund of Rs. 11,44,727.00 [Rs.6,93,475.00 (BED) Rs. 8252.00 (EC) Rs. 2,51,750.00 (Interest) and Rs. 1,91,250.00 (wrongfully appropriated)]. That entire refund of Rs. 12,44,727.00 was sanctioned under OIO No.Ref/Div.Wag/10/11-12, DT.06.02.2012 but without any interest for late sanction. 2.2 Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws to argue that intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Authorised Representative, therefore, strongly defended the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The provisions regarding payment of interest on delayed payment of refunds are covered by Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reproduced below:- 'Section 11BB.?Interest on delayed refunds. 'If any duty ordered to be refunded u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d amount of Rs. 1,91,250.00 was appropriated with respect to some confirmed dues which was later on set aside. For this amount of Rs. 1,91,250.00 refund claim earlier filed was appropriated which was not held proper. In the present factual matrix, interest on the amount of Rs. 1,91,250.00 will become due from completion of 3 months from the date of refund claim originally filed under Section 11BB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruing to the Appellant 3 months after 08.11.2011. CESTAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Bipin Silk Synthetics Vs CCE Mumbai-V (supra) has held that amounts paid at the time of investigation cannot be denied interest on the grounds that the amount paid was not duty and not entitled to interest. Similarly, in the case of CCE Kanpur Vs Kothari Products Ltd (supra) CESTAT Delhi held that interest has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
