9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal'), Regional Bench, Chandigarh, in Appeal No.E/56519/2013. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-M/s Bata India Ltd. is registered with the Central Excise Department and is engaged in the manufacture of footwear falling under Tarrif Item 64039120 and 64039920 of the First Schedule to the Central Tarrif Act, 1985. The Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi-II, vide order/notice dated 20.11.1997 had confirmed a demand of Rs.89,77,064/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on the appellant. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 22.05.1998 (Annexure A-2), while disposing of the interim stay application in the said case, directed the appellant to deposit a predeposit of Rs.20,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1996 (82) ELT 177." However, the interest was denied on the ground that a show cause notice was issued within three months of the receipt of the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a circular dated 16.09.2014 issued by the respondent-authority, which relates to refund of pre-deposit. The said circular provides that the refund claim cannot be rejected unless there is stay by the superior Court. As per this circular, even if, the department contemplates appeal against the order of the Commissioner (A) or the order of CESTAT, the refund and interest cannot be withheld. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ox copy of the order-in-appeal or CEGAT order consequent to which, the deposit made becomes returnable and an attested Xerox copy of the Challan in Form TR6, will be sufficient for the purpose of payment of refund by the competent officer. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that while dismissing the appeal for grant of interest on pre-deposit, judgment passed in AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd.'s case (supra), has been rightly applied to the facts of the present case, by the Tribunal. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the judgment passed in AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd.'s case (supra) shows that therein, payment of interest was being demanded from the date when the refund became due and it was den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is, once the Tribunal has decided to refund the pre-deposit of Rs.20,00,000/-, is the assessee entitled to interest on the delay payment of refund. This aspect has been considered by this Court in Shreewood Products Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra). In that case, application for refund was made on 22.05.2008. Part of some amount i.e. Rs.76,44,080/- was refunded in the month of January, 2009, whereas the remaining amount of Rs.88,72,686/- was refunded in the month of April, 2009. Reference was made to a circular issued by the Government of India on 02.01.2002, which provided that formal application for refund was not required. A simple letter from the person is sufficient along with copy of the order, on the basis of which, the refund became d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to be returned to him with 12% interest. I have also come across the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata - IV [2012 (285) E.L.T. 188 (Cal.), wherein the peremptory directions of the Apex Court in the judgment of ITC Ltd. (supra) was considered and ordered 12 % interest, and further held that when the High Court directed the respondents to pay interest to the appellant in terms of the circular dated 08.12.2004 on the predeposit of the delayed refund within two months, it has to be construed that, the court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd, which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of such deposit, addressed to jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax or the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, would suffice for refund of the amount deposited along with interest at the rate specified. 7.2 Record of deposits made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1952 should be maintained by the Commissionerate so as to facilitate seamless verification of the deposits at the time of processing the refund claims made in case of favourable order from the Appellate Authority." In the present case, since the amount was deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, even a simple application could be made for cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
