9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent dated 08.07.2016 and to issue a consequential direction to refund a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. 3. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.2092/2007 against the final order passed by the CESTAT in Final Order No.111/2007, dated 10.01.2007. At the time when the appeal was entertained by the Division Bench, a conditional order of stay was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The petitioner has complied with the said condition and the learned counsel would invite th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to the Circular No.984/08/2014, dated 16.09.2014 issued by the CBEC and submitted that even in case of pre-deposit, a simple letter from a person who has made such deposit requesting for return of the amount would suffice for refund. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Clause 5.1 of the circular, where appeal is decided in favour of the party/assessee, he shall be entitled to refund of the amount deposited along with interest at prescribed rate from the date of making such deposit to the date of refund in term of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. The learned counsel for the revenue pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .No.2092 of 2007. Therefore, there can be little doubt as regards the refund of the amount. 11. So far as the interest portion is concerned, the petitioner has referred to circular which contemplates the payment of interest when pre-deposit is effected and the assessee succeeds in the appeal. There is no reason as to why such condition should not be imposed in the instant case also because what was deposited by the petitioner is akin to a pre-deposit as it has been done pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 12. In this regard, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. I.T.C. Ltd., reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
