9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Consultant for the petitioners and Shri M. Kunhikannan, learned DR for the Revenue. 3. Learned Consultant submits that after the above noted pre-deposits were made the Tribunal in due course disposed of their appeal vide Final Order No. 2426/99 dated 23-9-1999 wherein the order impugned was set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. Learned Consultant submits that when the petitioners approached the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner with their letter dated 25-11-1999 requesting for refund of the pre-deposit of these sums, the said Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 15-2-2000 rejected the request on the ground contained therein. It was the learned Assistant Commissioner's v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of this Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Order No. 149/2000 dated 22-3-2000 in the case of Gulf Olefines (P) Ltd. wherein in similar circumstances this very Tribunal had directed the said Collector to pay interest on the amount from the date of deposit of the amount @ 12% per annum in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuil Fireworks as in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 4. The learned DR reiterates the grounds taken by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in the letter noted above. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and records of the case. We find that the submissions of the learned Consultant have great force and in fact the matter is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter since the issue is already covered by the decision of the High Court at Delhi. Therefore, respectfully applying the ratio thereof, we now direct in unequivocal terms the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to immediately refund the pre-deposited amount in this matter. 6. We also proceed to carefully consider the petitioners' request for interest for the period when the Revenue had illegally and wrongly retained the pre-deposit by refusing to refund the same. In this connection we find that the petitioners made application before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for such refund vide their letter dated 25-11-1999 after the issue of final order dated 22-9-1999 noted above. Therefore, we find that since this issue has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
