9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 (2) TMI 302 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] is identical and the facts are also similar. It was held in the said case that The refund application was filed only on 06.07.2004. In terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the interest liability of the Department for delay in payment of refund under Section 11B arises, only when there is delay beyond 3 months from the date of filing of the refund a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the appellant. 2. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of Safal Food Products-2022 (8) TMI 102-CESTAT NEW DELHI, Riba Textile- 2020 (2) TMI 602-CESTAT CANDIGARH and Futura Ceramics Pvt Ltd-2017 (12) TMI 701-CESTAT AHMEDABAD pass by Single Member Bench similar issues. 3. On the other hand the Revenue has relied on the decision in case of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs already paid by them. Thus, once the Addl. Commissioner held that the appellants' activity amounts to manufacture and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 17.59 Lakhs against them and appropriated Rs. 10.00 Lakhs as payment towards their assessed duty liability, the Rs. 10.00 Lakhs earlier paid by them becomes the payment of duty by the appellant towards assessed duty liability and cleared to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard is required to be filed by the assessee. The refund application was filed only on 6-7-2004. In terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the interest liability of the Department for delay in payment of refund under Section 11B arises, only when there is delay beyond 3 months from the date of filing of the refund application. Since in this case refund application had been made on 6-7-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (supra) cited by the ld. Counsel for the appellant are not application to the facts of this case. In view of this, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed." 4. I find that the issue involved in the case of Gyal M G Gases P Ltd is identical and the facts are also similar. The decision of Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
