9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween the Petitioner and the Central Excise authorities with regard to the value of certain computers. This dispute was finally resolved by an order made on 24th January, 1997 by the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT). The CEGAT, by the aforesaid order, partly allowed the Appeal and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Prior to the hearing the Appeal, the Petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rupees Twenty lakhs as pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Petitioner-assessee was aggrieved by the remand order made by the CEGAT and carried the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anuary, 1997 to 15th September, 2000 and, therefore, the Department must be directed to pay simple interest @ 24 per cent per annum or such other rate as the Court may find reasonable. 4.Mr. Jetley, learned Counsel for the Department, strenuously urged that the case of the Petitioner falls within Section 11-B of the Act and must be governed by the parameters applicable to the claim for refund of duty. In this regard he drew our attention to Section 35-F of the Act and contended that the amount which is liable to be deposited under Section 35-F is towards the order for duty and/or penalty and has the character of duty itself. This contention is no longer res Integra, atleast as far as this Court is concerned. (See in this connection the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade under Section 35-F of the Act is liable to be adjusted towards the claim for duty, in case the Appeal fails and it needs to be returned to the Appellant, in case the Appeal succeeds, whether fully or partly. In any event, looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears to us that the Respondents were wrong throughout. They proceeded to demand duty from the Petitioner in a clearly time barred case and because the Department took a wrong view of the matter; we see no reason why the Petitioner should be made to suffer loss of interest on the large amount of Rupees Twenty lakhs for a period of almost three years and more. 6.Mr. Jetley made an effort to persuade us that the consequence of the CEGAT's order was that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
