9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0261/2015-CU(SM) - Dated:- 21-1-2015 - Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Kamal Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. D. Singh, DR for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order to interest on delayed refund. 2. The facts of the case are that on 02.03.2010 the applicant has filed a refund claim on SAD paid by them under notification no.102/2007. The refund application was rejected on 18.06.2010 holding that refund claim is barred by limitation. The said order was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (A) and on 04.01.2011. The commissioner (A) remanded matter back to the assistant Commissioner to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, refund claim was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02/2007. The Honble High Court observed in para 10,11 12 as under: 10. On going through paragraph 4.3 of the circular, it is evident that the Board is of the view that there is no specific provision for payment of interest in the Notification No.102/2007-Customs, dated 14.09.2007. That reason is not correct as the grant of exemption under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is one facet. The claim for refund is contingent on complying with the requirement as specified in the notification. The exemption from payment of special additional duty as payable under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is exempted under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore the refund of duty paid will have to be read in terms of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, paragraph 4.3 of the Circular No.6/2008-Customs, dated 28.04.2008 is contrary to the statute and becomes totally inappropriate. When the circular is contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Tariff Act 1975, it has to be struck down as bad. 7. Further I find that in the case of Hero motors Ltd. this Tribunal has observed in para 7 as under: In fact, the applicability of Section 11BB is not even denied by the Department. The Department, however, seeks to deny the interest on the basis of the letters given by the appellant to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner giving up their claims for interest for the period of delay. The decision of the Commissioner (A) is absolutely incorrect and contrary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
