TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue deposits. It is further observed, as has been brought to notice, that Department since the time of issue of show cause notice have been acknowledging that amount in question is neither the amount of duty nor the amount of pre-deposit, the said acknowledgement is sufficient when read in the light of above discussed law to hold that the appellant was definitely entitled for interest on the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- but not in accordance with section 11B/11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly involved the said provision while restricting the entitlement of appellant for claim of interest. The appellant is entitled for the interest @ 12% per annum from the date it was deposited i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths from the date of refund application, only shall be available. Accordingly, the interest only for 14 months and 12 days has been sanctioned by Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants prayer even before Commissioner (Appeals) was for interest from the date of deposit of the amount which was refunded. Accordingly, the present appeal has been filed. 2. I have heard Shri Parth Mullick, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Ishwar Charan, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that initially the department has levelled wrong allegations against the appellant by considering the value of fixtures in the assessable value to deny the SSI exemption to the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed upon the correctness of the order under challenge. Findings in paragraph 5.2 of the aforesaid order and also in paragraph 5.4.2 of the impugned order have been impressed upon. It is mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) while relying upon the relevant case laws has rightly invoked section 11B of CEA and for claiming of interest section 11 BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 has rightly been invoked. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order, present appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the entire case record. The following two issues appears to have been involved in the present appeal: (1) Whether the Appellant is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs 10,00,000/-, as was deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11D of the Excise Act deals with duties of excise collected from the buyer to be deposited with Central Government. It provides that every person who is liable to pay duty and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed from the buyer of such goods in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. 32. Section 11DD of the Excise Act deals with interest on the amount collected in excess of the duty. It provides that where an amount has been collected in excess of the duty from the buyer of such goods, the person who is liable to pay such amount shall, in addition to the amount, be liable to pay interest at such rate not below ten per cent., an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of 31.1.2009 was issued proposing the demand of Rs.8,61,608/- for a period of 2005-2006 and for Rs.67,299/- for the period 2006-2007. The said show cause notice was initially adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2010 confirming the demand along with the additional demand totalling Rs.10,19,011/- thereby appropriating Rs.10 lakh already deposited. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 18.5.2012 had rejected the appeal, However, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 58250- 58251/2017 dated 5.12.2017 had set aside the confirmation of demand pursuant whereto the application seeking refund of Rs.10 lakh as were deposited on 31.08.2009, i.e. after 9 years of its deposit, was filed by the appellant 10. I find that Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kes it inexcusable. It was also held as follows:- 19. This illegal practice adopted by the Anti-Evasion Department of Central Excise requires a deeper investigation. The Court has every reason to believe that this has come to light only because the Petitioner has approached this Court. This practice is perhaps being adopted in a number of instances which are yet to come to the notice of the Court. There will be serious ramifications if this practice is allowed to continue unchecked. In the first place, it must be realised that the officers of the Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise Department have to function within the four corners of the law. They are bound by not only the C.E. Act and the Rules made thereunder but all the notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
