TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CCE, Hyderabad v. ITC Ltd.[ 2004 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] , by taking note of the Board s Circular, has ordered payment of interest on refund accruing to the assessee, as a result of success of their appeal. The Tribunal has also considered the said issue in a number of matters and has held that such amounts deposited after adjudication have to be treated as deposits and not duties and would not attract the provisions of unjust enrichment. The Board s Circular No. 275/37/2K-CX.8A has examined the issue relating to the refund of pre-deposit made during the pendency of the appeal and it was decided that since the practice in department had all along been to consider such deposits as other than the duty, such deposits should be return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l filed by the appellants was rejected. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court. As per the interim order dated 21-8-2000 passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 3,39,72,898/- on 16-11-2000. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by the Hon ble Supreme Court remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the issue of classification [2002 (143) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.)]. As a consequence, the original adjudicating authority passed the order accepting the appellants claim of classification under Heading 2901. There is no dispute about the said classification adopted by the original adjudicating authority. 2. As a consequence of settlement of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The above order of the Assistant Commissioner was appealed against by the revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), who after relying upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.)] held that the provisions of unjust enrichment are applicable. Since the lower authorities has not examined the same, he set aside the order and allowed the appeal of the revenue. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard Shri R. Ravindran, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri P.K. Katiyar, ld. SDR appearing for the revenue. 5. It is seen that the dispute originally related to the imports made during the year 1994 to 97. The differential duty was paid by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as other than the duty, such deposits should be returned in the event the appellants succeeds in appeal or the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. In Para 3 of the said Circular, the Board s observed as under :- In order to attain uniformity and to regulate such refunds it is clarified that refund applications under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 need not be insisted upon. A simple letter from the person who has made such deposit, requesting the return of the amount, along with an attested Xerox copy of the order-in-appeal or CEGAT order consequent to which the deposit made becomes returnable and an attested Xerox copy of the challan in Form TR6 evidencing the payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
