9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the three months from date of the disposal of appeal vide which, demands has been held as unsustainable held in their favour. Appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. E/1481/2011 - A/30022/2019 - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms L. Maithili, Advocate for the Appellant(s). Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent(s). ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2011 (H-II) CE dated 08.02.2011. 2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under ch. 32,38,39,40,48,74,76 and 85 of Central Excise Tariff. Paper based decorative laminates of different varieties falling under Chapter Subheading No. 4828.90, is one of the products manufactured by them (hereinafter referred to as the said goods). A show cause notice OR No. 16/96-Adjn. dated 31.1.1996 demanding ₹ 2,82,58,708/- was issued to the appellants demanding duty short paid on account of (1) non-inclusion of ineligible abatements; (2) the discounts declared and the discounts passed on had no correlati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e laminates) at factory gate exceeded at least 3% of the total sales (as ordered by the Hon ble Tribunal), found that the percentage was extremely low and felt that it was not fair to adopt to factory gate sales price vis-a-vis total sale. He further held that the appellants claim to adopt such artificial price to gain advantage on the clearances of bulk sales to depots where majority sale happened, would not be acceptable in the usual course of business and held that from the difference in factory gate price and depot price and from the amount of duty difference, which was crores of rupees, it was quite evident that prices adopted at factory gate were much lower than depot prices. He further held that party failed to explain the unreasonable differences in the said prices which vitiated the genuineness of the factory gate sale price and hence the factory gate prices shown in the nominal gate sales appeared to be rigged and the difference could not be attributed to sound commercial reasons. He, therefore, confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,61,81,601/- towards duty short paid and adjusted the amount of ₹ 35,52,110/- already paid towards those arrears. The appellants had again p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and rejected the amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- holding it was liable for rejection as the appellants had failed to submit all the relevant data relating to the final disposal of OIO No. 88/97 and the status of other petitions relating to the said pre-deposit of ₹ 50,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority after following due process of law, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority to the extent of adjustment of ₹ 35,52,510/- towards pending arrears and directed the sanctioned authority to pay amount of ₹ 50,00,000/-, he declined to pay interest to the appellant has prayed for. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant draws our attention to the facts of the case and submits that there is no dispute as to the fact that the amount of ₹ 85,52,110/- is claimed as a refund on the favourable decision by the Tribunal in their favour. It is her submission that in this appeal, they are praying for interest on the amount of ₹ 85,52,110/- and also to set aside the order of the adjustment of ₹ 35,52,510/- towards arrears. It is her submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 5. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submits that the refund of the amount which is being sought by them is already sanctioned i.e. by the lower authorities but ₹ 35,52,510/- has been adjusted towards the arrears of the confirmed demand. On interest, it is his submission that interest is payable after the three months from the decision of the issue which, according to him, in this case was on July 14, 2016. In support of this submission he produces decision of the Tribunal in the same issue in appeal No. E/926/2008 3901/2008 as reported at [ 2016 (11) TMI 1209 CESTAT- Hyderabad ]. It is his submission that Appeal No. E/926/2008 was the appeal which was decided by the Tribunal by Final Order No. 1490/2009 dated 3.12.2009 but the same was taken up for disposal by the Tribunal in the Final Order No. A/30833 to 30834/2016 dated 14.07.2016. He submits that why and when the appeal No. E/926/2008 of the assessee got restored and disposed is not mentioned in the said order. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the following two issues arise for reconsideration: i) whether refund sanct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
