TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssification was not accepted by the Assistant Collector and he classified the same under 3403 of CTA and directed the appellants to pay appropriate duty and CVD. On appeal from this order in original the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said adjudication order. The appellants preferred a stay application and appeal against the said order in appeal to the Tribunal. Tribunal while disposing the stay application directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 22,30,000/- which was complied by the appellants. The appellant s appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide Order Nos. 56-57/2000-C, dated 21-1-2000 [2001 (137) E.L.T. 1437 (Tri. - Del.). On succeeding in the appeal the appellants preferred a refund claim for the amount of pre-depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal i.e. from 21-1-2000 and the rate of interest should be 12% as is approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. ITC Ltd. - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). 4. The learned DR on the other hand submits that the refund interest is sanctioned by order in original is correct and the order in appeal does not require any modification. He submits that the period is also correctly calculated i.e. from the date of filing of the refund claim and the rate of interest is also correctly worked out based on the provisions of Section 27A of Central Excise Act, 1962. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that it is not disputed that the appellant has p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the instances arising out of non-implementation of the judicial orders, the Board has reason to review and reiterate the earlier Circulars on the subject of non-implementation of orders of CESTAT or any Final Authority in relation to returning pre-deposits made as per directions of CESTAT or any other Final Authority in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Board has taken a strict view with regard to non-returning of such deposits. 2. As we are all aware the CESTAT has in a number of such cases awarded interest on pre-deposits where its orders have not been implemented and the Department had challenged this and filed Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court. 3. The Board has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Courts must be withdrawn and compliance reported. The Board has also decided to implement the CESTAT Orders already passed for payment of interest and the interest payable shall be paid forthwith. From the above circular it is very clear that the Board has reiterated that the refund of pre-deposit should be sanctioned within 3 months from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal unless the same is stayed by higher judicial FERA. 7. From the facts of the case before me, the order of the Tribunal dated 21-1-2000 is not stayed by any higher authority. Hence the interest that is payable to the appellant, as per Board s circular dated 8-12-2004 (supra) would start working from three months after 21-1-2000 i.e. from 20-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
