9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The demand that was proposed and was confined only to Rs.67,97,827/-. The petitioner has not been paid interest separately on the amount that was deposited pending investigation. To that extent, the petitioner is entitled in interest at the rate of 6% on Rs.57,03,608/- only - The amount of tax which was paid by the petitioner for the subsequent period after 1.6.2007 could not have been refunded. However, curiously it appears to have also has been ordered to be refunded back. This would require a proper examination which fact is not forthcoming either from the petitioner or respondent. The case remanded back to the second respondent to re-examine the issue and pay/adjust interest payable to the petitioner firm and out of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period between 10.9.2004 and 21.8.2008. The Show Cause Notice called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why: i) a sum of Rs.67,97,827/- (Rupees Sixty Seven lakhs ninety seven thousand and eight hundred and twenty seven only) being the Service Tax payable for the period from 10.09.2004 to 31.08.2008 as detailed in Annexure I and II to this notice should not be demanded from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994; ii)the amount of Rs.55,47,059/- (Rupees Fifty Five lakhs forty Seven Thousand and Fifty Nine only) paid by the assessee on various dates as detailed in Annexure III to this notice should not be appropriated against the demand above: iii)Interest at appropriate rate should not be demanded from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent curiously sanctioned refund claim for a sum of Rs.98,27,018/- ( Rupees Ninety Eight Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Eighteen only) vide its Order-in-Original No.8/2019 dated 25.6.2019. However no interest was paid. 9. Under these circumstances, the petitioner requested the respondents to sanction interest at 6% on the amount deposited by the petitioner during the investigation prior to issue of the show cause notice. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai-II vs. UCAL Fuel System Ltd., 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad) and another decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich fact is not forthcoming either from the petitioner or respondent. 17. Under these circumstances, I remit the case back to the second respondent to re-examine the issue and pay/adjust interest payable to the petitioner firm and out of the amount paid. If there was an erroneous refund of the tax paid for the period after 31.10.2008, the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner. 18. This exercise shall be carried out by the second respondent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order after issuing a proper show cause notice to the petitioner. In case, it is opined that there was indeed an erroneous refund of the amount vide Order in Original No.8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
