9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed to calculate interest - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal Nos. E/70051 & 70052/2017-EX [ SM ] - Final Order Nos. 71968 -71969/2017 - Dated:- 24-11-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Aalok Arora (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil Choudhary The issue in these appeals relates to refund of pre-deposit made under the provisions of Section 35F and refund of the said amount with interest as provided under Section 35FF of the Act. 2. In Appeal No. E/70051/2017-EX[SM] the facts are as follows: 30.04.2002 Issued Show Cause Notice C. No. V(30) 193/Demand/2001/3412 dated 30.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel items remanded back to adjudicating authority. 26.02.2009 In remand proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority again disallowed the credit of ₹ 60,601/- vide Order-in-Original No. 289/AC/MBD/2009 dated 26.02.2009 and also imposed equal penalty of ₹ 60,601/-. 27.11.2009 An appeal was again filed before Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal No. 376-CE/MRT-II/2009 dated 27.11.2009. 08.03.2010 IInd appeal was again filed before CESTAT, New Delhi. The CESTAT allowed our stay application vide Stay Order No. 169/2010-SM(BR) dated 03.05.2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division Moradabad vide O-in-O No.06/AC/MBD/2013 dated 21.10.2013 sent by post (not served to appellant). 20.11.2015 The appellant vide letter dated 20.11.2015 wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division Moradabad that against O-in-O No.57/AC/MBD/2012 dated 04.06.2013, the appellant s appeal has been allowed vide Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/002/APP/178/2013-14 dated 12.11.2013, hence the Order dated 21.10.2013 adjusting the consequential refund claim (pre-deposit) is unjustified. 3. The facts in Appeal No. E/70052/2017-EX[SM] are as follows: 09.07.2003 Issued Show Cause Notice C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.04.2010 The appellant had deposited an amount of ₹ 62,269/- in RG-23-C Part-II vide Entry No. 43 dated 26.04.2010 against Order-in-Appeal No. 29-CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 15.02.2010. 08.03.2010 An appeal was again filed before CESTAT, New Delhi against Order-in-Appeal No. 29-CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 15.02.2010. 12.06.2012 The Hon ble CESTAT vide Final Order No. A/753-754/2012 dated 12.06.2012 allowed the appeal. 03.10.2012 On allowing of appeal by CESTAT, the appellant vide letter dated 03.10.2012 requested for refund of ₹ 62,369/-. 21.10.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority failed to calculate the interest payable to the appellants - assessee under the provisions of Section 35FF of the Act read with Notification. On being asked by this Tribunal the appellants have not disputed the legality of the dues adjusted which were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 57/AC/MBD/2012 dated 4th June, 2013. 5. The Learned Counsel further brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the said Order-in-Original dated 04/06/2013, pursuant to which their refund was adjusted, have been set aside vide Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/002/APP/178/2013 14 dated 12/11/2013. Hence, under the facts and circumstances they have become eligible for the amount adjusted earlier on 21/10/2013 with interest, as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
