9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority. The proceedings were with regard to request for refund of pre deposit only. The learned consultant has adverted attention to the amendments brought forth in Rule 14 of CCR, during the relevant period involved in these two proceedings [refund as well as wrongly availed credit]. The appellant ought to be given a chance to explain as to the liability to pay interest during the period. For verifying the liability/quantification of interest that has to be paid by the appellant, the matter requires to be remanded. Appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls).The appeal was filed belatedly and was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred. Though the appellant preferred an appeal before CESTAT against such order, the same was dismissed. The said issue with regard to availment of wrong credit of ₹ 48,51,589/- has, therefore, attained finality. The appellant had already reversed this credit of ₹ 48,51,589/-. However, they did not reverse the interest on such amount. The penalty in respect of the said amount confirmed was paid by the appellant. The appellant was under bona fide belief that since the credit (₹ 48,51,589/-) having been reversed before utilization, they are not liable to pay any interest. For a different period, for such wrongly availed credit, which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and the appellant is not liable to pay interest from 17.03.2011 to 31.03.2014. 3. Further, the adjudicating authority has not granted interest upon the sanctioned amount (₹ 25 Lakhs). As per section 35FF, which was introduced from 06.08.2014, the department has to refund the pre-deposit within three months from the decision of the Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal passed the order in favour of the appellant on 18.12.2017. The department ought to have sanctioned the refund on or before 18.03.2018. The refund was sanctioned only on 19.06.2018. The appellant, therefore, is eligible for interest from 18.03.2018. The said interest also ought to be granted to the appellant. 4. The learned Authorised Representative for the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant has to reverse the wrongly availed credit along with interest as per Rule 14 of CCR, 2004. Admittedly, the appellant has not reversed the interest on the credit. Adjudicating authority vide Order, dated 19.06.2018 has adjusted the sanctioned refund towards the arrears of interest. It is seen that the appellant was not given any personal hearing with regard to adjustment sought to be made by the adjudicating authority. The proceedings were with regard to request for refund of pre deposit only. The learned consultant has adverted attention to the amendments brought forth in Rule 14 of CCR, during the relevant period involved in these two proceedings [refund as well as wrongly availed credit]. Taking note of this fact, I am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
