9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorizing the Revenue adjusting the said amount towards due to them, it is improper for them to make such adjustment, No question of invoking equitable consideration - as per Section 11B and 11BB, appellants are entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date on which the application for refund was received - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellants. - E/20278/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20310 / 2017 - Dated:- 21-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member L. Maithili, Adv For the Appellant ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.10.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No 376/2004 dated 08.09.2004 had upheld the said order and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the appeal and vide Order No 386/2012 dated 12.06.2012, the Hon ble CESTAT Bangalore ruled in their favour granting consequential relief during the pendency of the dispute/appeal preferred by them. The lower authority communicated them vide letter dated 24.09.2004 of having enforced B.G. and having appropriated the amount of ₹ 12,50,000/-. In terms of appropriation dated 22.09.2004 vide order-in-original No. 18/2004 dated 09.12.2004 the lower authority had sanctioned an amount of ₹ 9,59,040/- as rebate to them and appropriated the sum towards dues owed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that order, the appeal was pending before the CESTAT along with stay application and during the pendency of appeal as well as stay application no coercive action can be taken against the appellant. She further submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the order-in-original has only relied upon the CBEC circular No. 967/1/2013 CX dated 01.01.2013 dealing with the broad issue of recovery of confirmed demand during the pendency of stay application. She further submitted that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgements of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Stella Rubber Works [2012(275)ELT 404 (Kar). Wherein the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka has observed as under: Refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra. Therefore I allow the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the said impugned order. Further as far as interest to be paid is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is entitled to interest because the appellant filed refund claim application on 21.12.2012 which was received in the O/O of the department on 24.12.2012 as stated in the order-in-original. Therefore as per Section 11B and 11BB, appellants are entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date on which the application for refund was received and on this the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs UOI [2011 (273)ELT 3(S.C.)] wherein it has been held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
