9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l dismissed. - Excise Appeal No.12645 of 2018-SM - A/11653/2021 - Dated:- 1-4-2021 - MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri. Vivek Bapat, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanjiv Kinker, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by the M/s. Bundy India Limited against denial of interest on the penalty refunded to the appellant. 2. Learned Counsel Mr. Vivek Bapat, appeared for the appellant. He argued that the appellant were entitled to refund of penalty but the claim of refund was rejected by the original adjudicating authority. They challenged the order of the original adjudicating authority before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the said order rejecting the refund claim and remanded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with penalty. He argued that the said observation was merely open remand. He relied on para 5.6 since of the said order. He further argued that the matter regarding issue of protective show cause notice is not relevant in the present proceedings as whether revenue is able to recover or not independent issue. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CORONATION SPINNING INDIA (Supra) has clearly held that interest of only refundable duty is admissible under Section 11BB had not that of penalty and fine. It is notice that Commissioner (Appeals) its original remand order dated 03.07.2017 has observed as follows:- 5.4. I further find that the adjudicating authority has merely mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble CESTAT, Ahmedabd in case of Bacha Motors (P) Ltd Vs. CST, Ahmedabad-2010 (20) STR 0575. The relevant para of the said law is reproduced below:- 4. It was also submitted that in several decisions of the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mill India Ltd. 2007 (210) ELT 188 (S.C.) to support the view that the Commissioner has no power to remand. After considering all these decisions, I find that in the case of M/s Mill India, the main issue before Hon ble Supreme Court was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Hon ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section. It cannot be said that H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
