9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 42 lakhs deposited by the appellant, Rs. 1.5 lakhs pertained to the payment made by them towards the impugned demand and only Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the Appellant in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal. The Madras High Court has taken quite a serious view in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., [ 1999 (10) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] by holding that When once the appeal is allowed by the CEGAT, there is no justification or reason, or rhyme, for the respondents to retain the sum of Rs. 12.5. The Madras High Court has also held that When once the Order has been set aside by the CEGAT, it follows automatically that the respondents could have sent a advise intimating the refund of the pre-deposit made by the Petitioner, which the respondents had not also chosen to do. Both the Appellants are thus entitled to interest as the amount of pre-deposit has not been refunded to the Appellants immediately after the Order was passed by the Tribunal either allowing the appeal or remanding the matter for afresh adjudication. The question which is now to be decided is the date from which interest is to be paid. Recently the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of the earlier Order No. 303/94-A, dated 19-10-94 of the Tribunal. 2.3 The learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants filed an application for refund on 2-3-1997, claiming refund of Rs. 75 lakhs deposited by them along with interest thereon; that the Suptd., under letter dated 10-6-97 directed them to submit Order-in-Original, Order-in-Appeal dated 1-6-96 and statutory statement of payment of deposit which were submitted by the Appellants under letter dated 6-7-1997; that the Assistant Commissioner, under letter dated 22-8-97 called for Tribunal's Order dated 19-10-97. The learned Advocate contended that it is thus apparent that they had furnished all the documents required by the Department for processing the refund claim filed by them. 2.4 He continued to mention that the Assistant Commissioner, in second remand proceedings, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 92,59,931.80 only, under Order-in-Original No. 382/RCB/97-98 without seeking to adjust the amount of Rs. 75/- lakhs; that their appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 126) E.L.T. 1225 (T), following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, directed the Commissioner to make payment of interest on the amounts from the date of deposit of the amount @ 12% per annum. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Voltas Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 34 (Del.) wherein the Delhi High Court has held that even in a case where the Tribunal remands the matter for re-adjudication, the amount deposited as pre-deposit should be immediately returned as in terms of Section 35F, pre-deposit is a deposit pending appeal and that once an appeal has been decided by setting aside the Order and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, the amount of pre-deposit cannot be retained as it is deposit pending appeal and that after the matter has been remanded, there is no appeal which is pending. 4.2 The learned Advocate contended that no formal refund claim is to be filed for seeking refund of amount deposited in terms of Section 35F of the Act; that since the amount of pre-deposit was not returned, the Appellants became entitled for interest on the same from the date of Order till the date of refund in terms of the Madras High Court judgment in C.C.E. v. Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s other than duty and such deposits should be returned in the event the appellant succeeds in appeal or the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. The Board has also clarified that refund applications under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act or Section 27 of the Customs Act, need not be insisted upon. A simple letter from the person who has made such deposit requesting the return of the amount along with copy of Order-in-Appeal and attested copy of the Challan will suffice for the purpose. 4.5 Finally the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Noida, Misc. Order No. 78/2003-NB(A), dated 1-5-2003 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 522 (T)]. The Larger Bench, after relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Eastern Coils Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 290 (Kol.), has directed the revenue to refund the amount deposited by the Appellants with interest @ 12% from the date of receipt of copy of the final order of this Tribunal dated 12-2-2002. 4.6 The learned Advocate thus, finally submitted that the Appellants were entitled to the refund of amount deposited by them under Section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Prints v. U.O.I., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.); that the said decision was not a final decision as the matter was only remanded; that in the second remand Order Nos. 871-872/97-WZB, dated 3-3-1997, the Tribunal again remanded the matter for ascertaining the margin of profit of the traders and to exclude the same from the assessable value; that it is apparent from the third Tribunal's Order No. CII/2820/WZB/1999, dated 26-10-99 [2000 (115) E.L.T. 659 (T)] that M/s. Sharda Synthetics Ltd. did not have all the copies of the declarations involved in the disputed proceedings and they had produced only 29 declarations; that thus for want of complete records on the part of the Appellant No. 1, the matter had to travel a number of times to the Appellate Tribunal and could not be finalized; that as such the delay in resolving the issue was not on part of the Revenue and the benefit of delay thus should not go to them. 6.2. The learned SDR, further, submitted that when the matter reached second time before the Tribunal, the deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs made earlier by the Appellate Tribunal was taken into consideration by the Tribunal and as such it cannot be claimed by the Appellant No. 1 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 42 lakhs deposited by the appellant, Rs. 1.5 lakhs pertained to the payment made by them towards the impugned demand and only Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the Appellant in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal. The Madras High Court has taken quite a serious view in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., 2000 (115) E.L.T. 302 (Mad.) by holding that When once the appeal is allowed by the CEGAT, there is no justification or reason, or rhyme, for the respondents to retain the sum of Rs. 12.5. The Madras High Court has also held that When once the Order has been set aside by the CEGAT, it follows automatically that the respondents could have sent a advise intimating the refund of the pre-deposit made by the Petitioner, which the respondents had not also chosen to do. 8. We also do not find any force in the submissions of the learned SDR that the amount pre-deposited would be returnable only when the Final Order is passed and not in a case where only the matter has been remanded for re-adjudication. The Delhi High Court has considered this aspect in Voltas Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 34 (Del.). In this case the Petitioners deposited Rs. 50 lakhs on 27-5-97 as per direction of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
