9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.10.2007. In terms of the said order, the appellant was directed to pay differential duty of Rs. 17,75,260/- along with interest. The appellant deposited the said duty and calculated the interest at the rate of 24%. 2. The said assessment order was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they were not required to pay interest at all and in any case have paid excess interest in respect of the differential duty and requested for refund of the excess interest. The appeal was disposed of by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order-in-appeal No.145/2008(V-I)CE dated 29.12.2008. As regards the interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under:- "Para 7. As regard the first aspect of refund of interest, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants feel that payment of interest is erroneous on their part, remedy for this would be to file a refund claim within the normal period of one year from the date of payment and claiming relief of refund before me is not maintainable as there is no such refund claim filed/rejected." 3. Though the appellant challenged the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal but it seems that during the pendency of the appeal, the same was withdrawn by the appellant. 4. In the above background, the appellant filed refund application on 8.4.2009 seeking refund of interest amount of Rs. 76,32,825/-. The said refund application was taken up for adjudication by Assistant Commissioner, who opined that the appellant cannot claim the refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as having been filed within the limitation period. 8. I have gone through the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals), the relevant part of which stands reproduced as above. No doubt, the appellate authority has observed that if the payment of interest is erroneous on the part of the assessee they can file refund claim within the normal period of one year. There is nothing in the said observation or finding of Commissioner (Appeals) to suggest that the period of one year would start running from the date of passing of the order. There is also no provision of law to that effect. If the appellant was aggrieved with the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding on the correct rate of interest, they could have challenged the same. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
