9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal quashed the duty-demand of Rs. 12,51,141.14 out of the total dues of Rs. 16,20,481.00 confirmed by the Commissioner. However, the penalty and redemption fine totalling Rs. 4.00 lakh, were upheld. The applicants had pre-deposited a sum of Rs. 17,53,366.00 on various dates pursuant to the Orders/Directions passed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also submits that taking into account the amounts deposited during the pendency of the appeal and consequential relief arising out of the final order of the Tribunal, the applicants became entitled to the relief of duty of Rs. 9,84,026.00. Accordingly, they filed a Refund Application with their Assistant Commissioner on 2-12-1998 for grant of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, the applicants have been compelled to approach the Tribunal to seek the direction for implementation of their order. 4. We have heard Shri S.K. Mohanty, learned Advocate and J.M. Kenedy, learned JDR. Shri Mohanty has placed reliance on number of Tribunal's decisions as also upon the decisions of the various High Courts in support of his submission that the applicants are entitled to the refund claim along with the interest amount. He also submits that no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's Order dated 7-10-1998 and as such, the same has attained the finality. Time was given to the learned JDR to seek the instructions of the Revenue. Shri Kenedy, learned JDR also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of another order cannot be made the basis for not granting refund to the applicants arising out of the Tribunal's order in their own case. In any case, we find that the Revenue has not filed any appeal or any Reference Application against the order before us. As such, the same has attained the finality and it was in judicial discipline that the Department should have implemented the said order of the Tribunal suo motu without delay, instead of issuing them a show cause notice on the point of limitation. In any case, the issue as to whether the demand was barred by limitation or not, was also settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) when the order of the Assistant Commissioner denying the refund on the point of limitation, was set aside by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.), wherein it was observed that the provisions of Section 11B can never be applicable to the deposits made under Section 35F, since it is not a payment of duty but only a pre-deposit for availing the right of appeal. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Sawhney Export House (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 81 (T), has observed that three months' period is a reasonable time for the authorities to give effect to the order of the Tribunal and has accordingly directed the Revenue to grant refund to the appellants along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the period starting from three months after the passing of the order till the date of payment and has also ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
