9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - A/767-768/2008-WZB/C-V/SMB - Dated:- 8-12-2008 - Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (T) Shri S.S. Khatiyar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These are the appeals filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is same, these are taken up for disposal by the common order. 4. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Garware Chemicals Ltd, Aurangabad, the respondents herein, are the manufacturers of excisable goods viz Polymer Films falling under Chapter Heading 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 5. They filed refund claims for Rs. 57,313/- and Rs. 1,12,254/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /508/2005/WZB/C.IV dated 09-05-2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. 2009 (Tri.)] in case of M/s. MSEB, Pole Factory has been reviewed by the Department and an appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble. High Court, Aurangabad Bench and the appeal is still pending decision before the High Court. However, he has preferred to sanction the claims for refund of interest of Rs. 57513/- and Rs. 1,12,254/- in the light of the CESTAT decision vide Order-in-Original both dated 25-1-2007. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad on the ground that when the case of M/s. MSEB, Pole Factory has not attained finality in as much as the Department has preferred an appeal before the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. cited supra, the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. MSEB, Pole Factory reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 209 (T), which was also considered by the Larger Bench, is no longer a good law and, therefore, the reliance placed by the lower authorities below on the Tribunal's decision in M/s. MSEB, Pole Factory's case in sanctioning the refunds of interest is not legal and proper. 13. The learned Counsel of the respondents relied upon the Supreme Count judgment in the case of C.CE, Aurangabad v. Balakrishna Industries reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Rich Kwality Products Ltd. reported in 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Central Excise Rules, 2002, interest is required to be paid from the first clay of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined; (b) Interest is required to be paid even if the differential amount is paid before the order, under Rule 7(3) of the said Rules, is issued finalizing the assessment. 16. In view of the above, I hold that the interest was correctly paid by the Respondents and they are not entitled to the refund. The refund amounts of Rs. 57,513/- and Rs. 1,12,254/- paid to them are recoverable from them. They are directed to pay back these amounts within ten days of the receipt of this order. 17. The appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed. The impugned Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
