9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been paid the refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/30963/2018 - A/30451/2019 - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri R. Raghavendra Rao, Consultant for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao 1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-002- APP-023-18-19 dated 27.04.2018. 2. The meandering course of events in this case are that the appellant filed a refund claim on 14.02.1992 which was partly allowed and partly rejected by the lower authority. This order of the lower authority was upheld by the Fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order in Original No. 62/95 Refund partly allowed and ₹ 29,80,997/- rejected on the ground of time bar 3 06/06/1996 Order in Appeal No. 57/96 (G)(CE) Upheld the Order in Original, except to the extent of holing duty paid on 14/08/1991 was also within six months from the date of claim. 4 23/04/2002 Hon ble CESTAT Final Order No. 498/2002 Held that the claim was within time, as the assessments were provisional, but remanded for verification of unjust enrichment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is not applicable, allowed the appeal 12 30/01/2017 Order in Original No. 18/2016-17 Allowed refund of ₹ 29,80,997/-, but rejected interest under Sec 11BB 13 27/04/2018 Order in Appeal No. 23/2018-19 Upheld rejection of interest 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue of refund has been settled and they have been sanctioned refund under section 11B. The only dispute is denial of interest under section 11BB. He would submit that both the lower authorities have hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hence the appellant in that case was also filed a writ petition. Both cases were decided by the Hon ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh vide a common judgment dated 12.08.2018 upholding the decision of the Tribunal. Thus, the issue has also achieved finality at the hands of the jurisdictional High Court. 4. In view of the above, he would urge that this case may be decided accordingly. 5. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that this case came to a conclusion only by the Final Order of the CESTAT on 20.10.2016 and refund was paid within 3 months there after therefore interest is not payable from the date of original application. 6. I have conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (2) of section 11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the Court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section. A plain reading of the section shows that date for reckoning the interest is the date of application in case of applications filed post Finance Act, 1995 and three months from the date of presidential assent to this Act for refund applications filed prior to Finance Act, 1995. In this case, the application was filed in 1992 and therefore with effect from 25.08.1995 interest has to be paid. This Bench has decided so in the case of Gayatri Timbers Private Ltd., (supra) which decision has been uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
