9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants claimed refund of the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 10,18,863/- made under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, pursuant to the stay order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dt.01.03.2004. The appeal was decided in their favour by the Tribunal by its order dt.17.03.2009 by setting aside the duty, interest and penalty. Consequently, the Appellant had filed refund of the said pre-deposit with the Department on 02.07.2012. The refund claim was allowed on 05.12.2012 without any interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who partially allowed their appeal, observing that the Appellant is entitled to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order dt.05.12.2012. Now, the Appellants are before me agitating that the refund sanctioning authority has not sanctioned interest on delayed refund inspite of the fact that they claimed for the same in the application. Though the Appellant has not been able to produce the documents evidencing that they claimed interest also before the refund sanctioning authority, but I am of the opinion that the interest is payable on delayed refund of pre-deposit even if the same is not claimed in the application. Now, coming to the question of the present case, I find that Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 deals with the interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit, which provides that: SECTION 35FF: Interest on delayed refund of amount dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within three months from the date of communication i.e. 02.07.2012 of the order dt.17.03.2009, the interest liability arises. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled for interest after the expiry of three months from the said date i.e. 02.07.2012. 10. The Appellants have sought for the interest from the date of deposit of the said amount to the date of payment, relying upon the decision in the case of Amidhara Texturising (P) Ltd Vs CCE Surat - 2012 (278) ELT 257 (Tri-Ahmd), and M/s Vijay Textile Vs UOI 1979 (4) ELT (J-181). I find that in both those cases, the matter was refund of amount collected illegally and not towards pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. I am of the opinion that sub-clause (ec) of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time. In this regard, I rely upon the decision in the case of Pearl Soap Company 2007 (216) ELT 247 (Tri-Mum), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit - Letter requesting refund to be filed along with attested copy of order consequent to which the amount pre-deposited becomes refundable and attested copy of Central Excise Challan in form TR-6 - All such documents having been filed on 1-11-1999, appellants entitled for refund of interest from 1-11-1999 - Impugned order set aside - Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944." 7. I do not find any discrepancy in the reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal, being devoid of merit, is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
