9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 11,20,304/- and Rs. 5,62,608/- (Rs. 16,82,912/-) were confirmed against the appellant initially vide the Order-in-Original No. 238-239/2002 dated 04.09.2002 and later vide Order in Appeal dated 14.09.2004. CESTAT vide Final order dated 23.03.2010 remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 19.01.2011 again upheld the demand confirmed during finalisation of provisional assessment. On being challenged before this Tribunal, the stay was granted vide Stay Order No. 165/2012 dated 25.01.2012 along with the direction to the appellant to deposit the aforesaid entire amount. Consequently, the same was deposited on 07.03.2012. However, vide Final Order No. A/56374/2016 dated 21.12.16, the matter was rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has laid emphasis upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Orient Enterprises reported as [1998 (99) ELT 193] wherein it was held that claim of interest is in the nature of compensation only and can be awarded in case of wrongful retention of money by the Department that was collected from the assessee in the form of either of customs duty or redemption fine or penalty, hence interest cannot be awarded as a matter of right. Another decision of Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. Union of India reported as [2011(273) ELT 3 (SC)] has been impressed upon. It is submitted that in view of these decisions there is no infirmity in the order unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tribunal dated 25.1.2012 and the said assessment was set aside vide the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.6.18. Reverting back to the facts as far as application of refund claim is concerned, I peruse that the refund claim application as required under section 11B has been filed by the appellant in the present case after the aforesaid order of 20.6.2018, i.e. on 19.7.2018. The said claim was sanctioned in cash vide the order dated 26.9.18. This perusal is sufficient for me to hold that the refund claim was sanctioned within three months from the date of application filed by the appellant for the said claim. In view of the above discussion and interpretation of section 11BB and above facts in the present case, I do not find the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
