9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der deposit. Same had not been refunded. Therefore, they filed Misc. application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after due consideration passed the Misc. Order No. 1041/99 dated 6-12-1999 directing the Commissioner to refund the amounts which are under deposit and report compliance on 14-2-2000. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai in terms of Tribunal's Misc. order refunded the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs. However, applicants contend in this Misc. application that they are also entitled for interest on the amounts which were under deposit and the same is required to be paid to them from the date of deposit. 2.The Tribunal had called for report from the Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner has sent comments to the SDR's office, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, ld. DR's submission is that no interest is payable as amounts have been returned immediately after the order and there was no undue delay on the part of the Revenue in retaining the sums and hence question of paying interest which would be penal in nature is not called for in the present case. 3.He submits that amounts are to be retained under Section 35F of the Act till the disposal of appeal and to be appropriated after the case. If the Revenue succeeds so, such deposits are not to accrue interest as no benefit is derived by Revenue also. Therefore, the order of payment of interest would be penal in nature. 4.Countering the arguments, ld. Advocate submits that the citations in Voltas Ltd.; K.S. Steel Works; Summerking Electricials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id on March 30th 1991 and amounts paid in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal on 27-1-1992 with interest at 12%. He brings to our notice the judgment of the Madras High Court rendered in the case of Oswal Agro Ltd. as in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 302 wherein also the deposits made in terms of Section 129E of the Act in terms of interim order of CEGAT was directed to be refunded with 15% interest. He further relies on the Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. v. UOI as in 1996 (32) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) wherein also the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay directed the Revenue to refund the deposits made under Section 35F of the Act with 15% interest per annum. Therefore, he submits that Apex Court and High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest aspect. The judgment of E. Merck (India) dealt with the grant of interest prior to insertion of Section 11BB and the Court held that there was no statutory provision for grant of interest and there cannot be any directions for such payments. In the case of Living Media India Ltd (supra), the matter was pertaining to the settlement of the case between the two parties and in such circumstances, the Apex Court said that provision on interest cannot be invoked and same is not payable. While in the present case, the Apex Court in the case of Kuil Fire Works Industries and Madras High Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills and Bombay High Court in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. (supra) have clearly given a direction for payment of interest. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
