9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has already been sanctioned and paid to the appellant. It is brought out form the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) that the appropriation was erroneous. On such findings, the claim of the appellant for the interest from the date of appropriation is not without basis. Further, the issue stands squarely covered by the decisions laid by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy. Lab. Ltd. [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1985. They filed rebate claims for the duty paid by them on the goods cleared for exports under Rule 18 of CE Rules, 2002. The rebate sanctioning authority sanctioned the rebate but however, without making payment to the appellants, appropriated the entire amount towards recovery of rebate of ₹ 21,18,36,117/- sanctioned earlier vide Order-in-Original No.462/2011, dated 30-09-2011 on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-05-2013). Though the rebate was granted the original authority failed to grant interest on the sanctioned rebates, and therefore the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order impugned herein the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim of interest . 2. On behalf of the appellant the Ld. Counsel, Shri B.Seshadri Rao, submitted that the amount of rebate of ₹ 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The contention that the interest is payable from the date of original sanction of rebate/appropriation is not acceptable as the refund of rebate amount was adjusted to dues which were in arrears at that point of time. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. At the outset, it has to be stated that the issue whether the appellant is eligible for the rebate of ₹ 21,18,36,117/- has attained final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
