9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section 1 of Section 11BB of the Act. The original authority is directed to quantify the interest for the period after the expiry of 3 months from the date of filing the refund application till the amount is paid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/25/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21010/2019 - Dated:- 14-11-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Sundeep Huilgol, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner(AR) ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 01/10/2008 pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 seeking refund of ₹ 1 crore deposited by it. Thereafter the ACCE passed an order dt. 05/06/2007 sanctioning the said refund but refused to disburse and instead adjusted the said amount of ₹ 1 crore as against a separate demand raised on the appellant vide different Orders-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order of adjustment dt. 05/06/2007, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). In the mean time, another show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and Order-in-Original dt. 24/09/2004 was passed by CCE confirming the demand along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal along with an application seeking stay of recovery of duty, interest and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sbursal of the sanctioned refund of ₹ 1 crore and ₹ 14,56,044/- to the appellant under Section 11B but denied the interest. Against which the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the impugned order, the refund has been granted to the appellant but at a belated stage and demanded interest for the delay in granting the refund. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has not given any reason for declining to pay the interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. He further submitted that liability to pay interest stands automatically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts due to an assessee by revenue authorities does not affect the assessee s claim for interest in regard to a delayed refund/rebate claim from the date of filing of the claim. He also relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench in the case of Vijai Industries Vs. CCE [2003(158) ELT 517] which was upheld by the Karnataka High Court reported in 2010(258) ELT 358. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that interest is to be paid from the expiry of 3 months from the date of decision of the Tribunal. For this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Vs. CC,CE ST, Hyderabad-II [2019(1) TMI CESTAT Hyderabad. 6.1. After cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case, this Tribunal in the case of Vijai Industries cited supra has held as under:- 5. the party has filed a refund claim on 17-1-2000. It was not correct on the part of the authorities below to have adjusted the refund amount towards the other demand, since the very demand was under challenge by way of appeal, as it was observed by the Tribunal while passing the miscellaneous order. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the party is entitled to interest from 17-4-2000 till 5-12-2000. Appeal is allowed, accordingly. The said decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and the appeal of the Department was dismissed. The Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
