9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturing of software and were permitted to store duty free imported and indigenously procured goods. Respondent vide their letter dt. 11-1-2008 had applied for refund of an amount paid by them after de bonding of their manufacturing facilities. The said refund application was processed by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the respondent has paid an amount of Rs. 4,29,985/- excess than the amount which is liable to be paid by them on de-bonding of their unit. Coming to such conclusion, he sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 4,29,985/- Rs. 2,23,245/- towards duty and Rs. 2,06,740/- towards interest). Aggrieved by such an order, Revenue filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the impugned order is correct. He would submit that the amount which has been refunded to the respondent is not interest, per Se, but an amount collected from as duty and interest. He would submit that the amount which has been in excess could not have been retained by the Department as there is no reason to retain the amount which is without authority of law. 5. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of interest of Rs. 2,06,740/-. It is the contention of the Revenue that this amount is nothing but interest paid by the respondent and any refund under Section 11B would income to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of the Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi held that "Refund of interest Maintainability of Anywhere any amount wrongly collected, department cannot refuse refund on ground that it is not provided under statutory provisions of refund - interest if collected when it is not to be recovered is to be refunded." 4. As far as the department's plea on the aspect of unjust enrichment is concerned, the question does not arise at all in the instant case as the amount was inadvertently paid by the Respondents at the time of debonding of the capital goods and transfer from one premises of theirs to the other." 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of the impugned order, that Id. Commissioner (Appeals), has categorically held that the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
