9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on these diamond kits under protest. Following the order of the Tribunal in August 1999 holding that such packing of chain and connecting links with bought out sprocket did not involve an exigible process of manufacture, TIDC claimed refund of the excise duty paid by them on the kits. Before the original authority, the assessee produced documentary evidence substantiating payment of impugned amount of duty and that the same had not been recovered from the buyers of the kits. A certificate from Chartered Accountants to the effect that the refund amount claimed had not been collected from the customers of TIDC and that the amount of Rs. 1,37,13,435/- had been shown under the heading 'Loans and Advances' under the classification 'Current Asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven a reasoned finding as to how the above amount represented duty collected. (ii) Refund of Rs. 3,55,800/- With relevant documents the appellants had established that the entire excise duty on diamond kits was kept as a deposit in their books of accounts. The certificate of the Chartered Accountant showed that this amount had not been recovered by TIDC. The claim for refund of this amount had been disallowed on a wrong ground that the same related to unsold stock. (iii) Refund of Rs. 21,329/- The above amount pertained to 18 invoices. The invoices had carried endorsement of duty paid by TIDC on chains (input of kit) at the time of their clearance to kit unit. 3. During hearing the authorized representative of the appellants submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise duty paid under protest not collectable/recoverable from customers'. He found on verification of the assessee's sale invoices that it had not realized an amount of Rs. 1,25,05,659/- paid to the Department under protest. He also relied on the certificate produced by the Chartered Accountant to the above effect as well as the certification that the said amount was accounted as 'loans and advances' under the head 'current assets' as on 31-8-1999 in the assessee's records. Accordingly he allowed refund of Rs. 1,25,05,659/- by cheque. An amount of Rs. 3,55,800/-pertained to unsold stock. So claim for this amount was denied. Rs. 21,329/- being total of the amounts shown as excise duty in eighteen invoices raised during the period immediately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at TIDC had explained with their pricelist and stock transfer notes, that the sale price represented the value on which they had paid the excise duty under protest and the items of expenditure such as freight and discount. This freight was for transport from depots to dealers and discount allowed; both were not includible in the value for assessment of duty. The Assistant Commissioner observed that TIDC paid excise duty at the applicable rate of 16% adv and did not recover the same from their buyers. In reply to the Show Cause Notice proposing to deny refund on the ground of unjust enrichment of the appellants, the appellants had explained its sale price citing particulars relating to Model No. K10941638F as follows:- List Price for Model ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittedly paid by TIDC and not collected from customers. 7. We find that the appellant withdrew claim for refund of Rs. 3,55,800/- on the ground that major part of it was released by the department since. The appeal as modified does not cover this amount. 8. The appeal for grant of refund of Rs. 12,07,776/- and Rs. 21,329/- deposited in the CWF as per the impugned order along with admissible interest u/s 11BB of the Act is allowed. Appeal No. E/1159/2001 9. In this appeal TIDC has claimed interest of an amount of 1620451/- for the delay in sanctioning refund of Rs. 1,21,28,530/- beyond the period of three months from 4-10-1999 when they had filed claim for refund of above Rs. 1.37 crores including the amount sanctioned. After hearing both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to refund of the amount claimed. The Revenue has no case that the appellants had withheld any information sought from them and delayed settlement of the claim. In the circumstances we are satisfied that the appellants are eligible for interest for the period of delay in sanction of refund in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 9.2 The Section 11BB provides for grant of interest when the refund claim is allowed with delay beyond three months of filing the claim. We find that the JDR wrongly argued that for the purpose of allowing interest, a different date when the claim complete with all records/documents necessary for examining its eligibility is filed is relevant. The appeal is allowed. (Operative portion of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
