9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favor of appellant. - E/524/2012-SM - Final Order No. 22171/2017 - Dated:- 21-9-2017 - Shri M.V.Ravindran, Judicial Member Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. Matrupsaran, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per : M.V.Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 49/2012 dated 01/02/2012. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the entire issue is regarding the claim of interest by the appellant from the department for belated sanctioning of the refund claims filed by them. 4. After reading the list of dates and events, learned counsel submits that the Honble High Court has held in their favour holding that they are elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.1996 ₹ 2,28,583/- claimed for qtr. ending 31.03.1997 27.09.1996 28.01.1997 19.05.1997 06.08.1997 SCNs issued for the above refund claims 29.09.1997 Order in Original No. 81/97 rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 9,25,925/- 27.09.1999 Order in Appeal No. 1064/1999 allowing the refund claim of ₹ 9,25,925/- 03.12.1999 Appellants filed application before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore requesting the refund for an amount of ₹ 9,25,925/- 02.03.2000 Assistant Commissioner passed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved by the above letter, the Appellant approached the Hon ble High Court vide W.P. No. 10500/2003 26.08.2003 Hon ble High Court directed the Appellant to pay the amount of ₹ 9,88,592/- 28.10.2003 24.11.2003 18.12.2003 28.01.2004 28.02.2004 The Appellant remitted the said amount to the department 26.10.2004 Department issued a letter seeking to recover ₹ 3,85,573/- in the form of interest on delayed remittance of the refund of ₹ 9,88,592/- 07.01.2005 03.02.2005 Appellant remitted the interest sought for. 14.07.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Tribunal 7. The said list of dates and events are not disputed by the Revenue. 8. In my view, mere perusal of the said list of dates and events, it can be noticed that there was protracted litigation on the refund claims and sanctioning thereof by the lower authorities and the matter was settled by the Hon ble High Court in appellant s favour. The appellant having filed refund claims as early as in 1996-97 was correct in claiming the interest liability from the Revenue authorities under the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, is the law which has been settled by the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra). 9. I respectfully reproduce the findings of the Lordships recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, Bangalore is hereby confirmed by holding that the appellant/assessee is entitled to refund of the duty. 10. In view of the settled law, it has to be held that the appellant is eligible for the interest on the amount of refund claims after three months from the date of filing. 11. As regards the findings recorded by the first appellate authority that an appeal cannot be filed against the letter written by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner as it is not an Order-in-Original or an order, I find that the law is well settled on the issue and Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Chief Commissioner Central Excise, LTU vs. TNT Pvt. Ltd.: 2010 (19) STR 5 (Kar.) has laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
