TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest be awarded @ 10% per annum from the date of order i.e. 6-2-1996 to the actual date of refund i.e. 23-11-1998. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant preferred further appeal before the Tribunal in the year 1987, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 6-2-1996. The matter was again remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the claim within a period of four months (P4). On 26-5-1997, again directions were issued by the Tribunal to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter (P-5). On 26-6-1997, the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) for the third time again rejected the claim of the appellant on similar grounds on which it was earlier rejected. 5. The matter again went to the Tribunal and vide order dated 15-12-1997, the Tribunal directed the Assistant Commissioner to refund the amount of duty claimed by the appellant taking into account the value of the damaged go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 6-2-1996 to the date of actual refund i.e. 23-11-1998. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of income Tax-I, Pune, 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.). 9. However, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a order of the Tribunal wherein reference has been made to the amendment made in Section 28(A) of the Act in the year 1995 and detailed reasons have been given for not granting interest to the appellant. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of order i.e. 6-2-1996 till the actual date of ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|