9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also it is an admitted fact that order of refund was announced on 08.02.2016, the amount was disbursed on 29.04.2016 once the payment is made within three months of the refund, no question of any interest to be paid along therewith at all arises. Even for the period since August, 2012 till February, 2016, the Appellant is held not entitled for the interest as prayed - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 51326/2018 [SM] - Final Order No. 51316/2019 - Dated:- 7-10-2019 - HON BLE MRS. RACHANA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. Rajesh Rawal, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. K. Poddar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent The Appellant herein ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Rawal, Advocate. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the appellant was forced to make a deposit of Rs. ₹ 4,72,600/- in 2003 and 14,17,723/- in 2012, the same has finally been refunded in 2016 but the fact remains is that the amount was lying detained with the department unlawfully over these years which entitles the Appellant for the interest on the said refunded amount that too from the date of the payment thereof. Learned Counsel has relied upon (i) 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.) Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (ii) 2009 (243) E.L.T. 560 (Tri.-Bang.) ,Omjai Bhavani Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Cus. S.T., Hyderabad (iii) 1997 (95) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed upon by learned Department Representative that the arguments of the Appellant for amount to have been detained by the department illegally and unlawfully are absolutely false. It is submitted that in furtherance of subsequent order of Hon'ble Supreme court directing restoration and disposal of appeal on merits that Commissioner (Appeals) ordered for refund of amount on 08.02.2016 which was finally refunded/disbursed on 29.04.2016 i.e within a period of three months. Hence, no question of any entitlement of the Appellant for interest at all arises, appeal is prayed to be dismissed. After hearing both the Parties, it is observed that the narrow compass of the present adjudication is : Whether Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that order of refund was announced on 08.02.2016, the amount was disbursed on 29.04.2016 once the payment is made within three months of the refund, no question of any interest to be paid along therewith at all arises. The case law as relied upon by the Appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the present case there is no illegal detainment of the impugned amount by the department as is apparent from the arguments put forth by the Department Representative that the amount in question was deposited only after Hon'ble Supreme Court had confirmed the deposit of 1 4th amount of duty as was proposed to be recovered vide show cause of the year 1994. The said order was initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
