9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular No. 984/8/2014- CX dated 16.09.2014 was also issued with reference to the new provision of 35F/35FF therefore the Adjudicating Authority has gravely erred on applying said Circular. In the present case as regard submission of Learned Counsel that order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct and legal on the ground that the department has not issued protective show cause notice for recovery of interest amount which was already sanctioned and paid to the appellant, therefore the order is not sustainable - the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the appeal against an appealable order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the non issuance of protective show cause notice does not create any estoppels to the Learned Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010. This tribunal allowed the stay application in the appellant s favour. Subsequently, the appeal was also allowed by this Tribunal vide final order No. A/12081/2018 dated 14.12.2018. After the appellant succeeded before this Tribunal , a refund claim was filed by the Appellant for sum of Rs. 25 Lacs and also lodged claim for interest on Rs. 25 Lacs that had been lying with the Revenue during the intervening period. 1.2 The Assistant Commissioner of CGST decided the refund claim by OIO No. 2/UrbanRef/2019- 20 dated 16.04.2019 and sanctioned the refund of pre-deposit of Rs. 25 Lacs and also interest thereon aggregating to Rs. 5,55,093/-.The Assistant Commissioner allowed the interest from 22.01.2010 on the basis that the period during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced reliance on the following judgments :- Grasim Industries Ltd vs. CCE , Bhopal 2011 (271) ELT 164(SC) CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Pricol Ltd 2015 (320) ELT 703 (Mad.) Doothat Tea Estate Kanoi Plantation (P) Ltd vs. CCE, Shillong 2001 (135) ELT 386 (Tri. Kolkata) James Robainson India Pvt Ltd vs. Commr. C.Ex. , vapi 2009 (234) ELT 297 (Tri. Ahmd) T.T. G Industries vs. CCE Raipur 2014 (303) ELT 133(Tri. Del) CCE, Calcutta-I vs. Bells Control Ltd - 1999 (110) ELT 804 (Tribunal) 2.2 He further submits that Government of India has issued a clarification through the CBEC by way of Circular No. 984/8/2014- CX dated 16.09.2014 and directed all Revenue officer to refund with interest any amount deposited by an assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investigation of the case way back in January and February, 2007. Therefore, the amended provision of 35F /35FF prevailing in 2014 is not applicable in the case of any deposit made prior to enactment of Finance Act, 2014. The Circular was also issued with reference to the new provision of 35F/35FF therefore the Adjudicating Authority has gravely erred on applying said Circular. 4.2 In the present case as regard submission of Learned Counsel that order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct and legal on the ground that the department has not issued protective show cause notice for recovery of interest amount which was already sanctioned and paid to the appellant. therefore the order is not sustainable . In this regard I find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
