TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF INDIA) has held that when the amount of pre-deposit paid in terms of the Tribunals order becomes refundable on the final decision being in the assessee’s favour, the pre-deposit must be refunded within three months and the interest @ 12% would be payable for the period of delay beyond the three months. On the basis of Apex court’s judgment the Board also issued a Circular. Calcutta High Court in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolkata - IV reported in [2012 (7) TMI 512 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that during the period prior to 10/05/08 interest for the period of delay beyond three months in refund of pre-deposit would be payable @ 12% per annum in accordance with the Apex court’s judgment in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 28/01/05 directed the respondent to contact the proper officer and make an application for interest for the period of delay. The appellant accordingly submitted a letter dated 28/03/2005 requesting for interest @ 12%. The Assistant Commissioner, however, vide order-in-original dated 05/07/06 rejected the interest claim for the period of delay in the refund of pre-deposit on the ground that Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not in existence at the material time when the amounts were appropriated. Aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 05/07/06 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % per annum. The respondent vide letter dated 30th November 2009 again represented that the interest should be paid @ 12% and in response to this letter the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 02/12/09 replied that the memorandum dated 04/05/07 was issued after going into the facts of this case and discussing the case for the Department as well as for the party and that the impugned memorandum cannot be reviewed by this office. Against this letter dated 02/12/09 of the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) which was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 05/02/10 by which he allowed the appeal of the respondent directing that the Commissioner (Appeals)s order 06/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent in the year 1988 for compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, and same had become refundable when their appeals were allowed. However, when the respondent applied for refund, the amounts of pre-deposit totalling ₹ 7,52,610/- were appropriated by the department towards some demands. Section 11BB providing for interest on delay in refund was introduced w.e.f. 26/05/95 and specific provision for interest for the period of delay in the refund of the amount of pre-deposit was introduced by inserting Section 35FF w.e.f. 10/05/08. Though during the period of dispute, there was no provision for interest for the period of delay in refund of the pre-deposit, the Apex court in the case of ITC Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
