9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - C/CSM/71/2004 - A/659/KOL/2007 - Dated:- 20-4-2007 - [Order]. - The cry of the appellant in this appeal is that its Bank Guarantee of Rs. 7,43,014/- encashed by Revenue on 22-12-1995 towards realisation of the differential duty as averred in Misc. Application No. 128/97 filed by the Revenue on 2-5-97 has entitled the appellant to interest on delayed refund. 1.2 The ld. Counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per law. 1.3 Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent relies on certain decisions in support of his contention. Those were (i) Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 522 (Tri.-LB), (ii) Dugar Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 576 (Cal.), (iii) Eastern Coils Private Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014/- was encashed on 22-12-95. Also that was done to realize the differential duty. Therefore, what was the contention that security deposit was not duty, no more remained a controversy or dispute by the above pleading. Therefore, the appellant should succeed and if there was any delay in making refund, the appellant can not be denied of its right to interest as admissible by law. It should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
