9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n amount attributed to the inputs for the finished goods lost in the fire accident. There is nothing on record to hold that the said amount was paid under protest by the appellant. Since, there is no protest for the demand of Excise Duty on the goods destroyed, for this reason also, there is no reason to hold that the impugned amount of ₹ 13,96,738/- which was an amount for the inputs for the goods lost in the said fire, was not the amount of duty paid. The appellant is not at all entitled for the interest that too, from the date of payment of the amount i.e. 24.05.2012. The interest from the date of application also is not required to be paid for the reason that the refund was sectioned within three months - there are no infir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019-20 dated 3rd June, 2019. The appellant, however has filed an application for grant of interest on the said sanctioned amount from the date of payment of the amount i.e.24.05.2012 till the date of order for the payment i.e. 03.06.2019. The said request was initially rejected vide Order-in-Original No.05/2019-20 dated 06.08.2019. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heared Ms. Vibha Narange, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mahesh bhardwj, learned Authorised Representative for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that interest claim has wrongly been rejected in terms of provisions of Section 11BB of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under protest by the appellant. Since, there is no protest for the demand of Excise Duty on the goods destroyed, for this reason also, there is no reason to hold that the impugned amount of ₹ 13,96,738/- which was an amount for the inputs for the goods lost in the said fire, was not the amount of duty paid. This observation is sufficient to falsify the submissions of the appellant. No doubt, the said reversal of Cenvat Credit was set aside by this Tribunal vide its order dated 19.02.2018 but the fact remains that the application to claim the said refund of ₹ 13,96,738/-, as is required under Section 11B of CEA was filed by the appellant on 06.04.2018 and the refund was sanctioned on 03.06.2019. This perusal is sufficient to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
