TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree months failing which liable to pay interest. Refund claim sanctioned on 1.4.2006. No reason to interfere with Commissioner (Appeals) order. - E/1122/2006 - 77/2010 - Dated:- 2-2-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri K.S. Naveen Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri U. Raja Ram, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 49/2006 dated 27-9-2006, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. The relevant facts of the case for consideration are - the appellants are manufactures of lead acid batteries falling under Chapter heading 85 of CETA, 1985. The appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, coming to such a conclusion, he allowed the appeal. 4. The learned Counsel submits that they are aggrieved over the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that the said order grants some relief only for the interest for the period after three months from the date of filing the refund claim. It is the submission that they had paid the amount during the period March, 2003 to June, 2004 as per the direction of the Revenue authorities. They should have been granted interest from those dates and not from three months after the refund claim is filed on 12-7-2005. He relied on several decisions which are as under :- (i) Lucid Colloids Ltd. v. Union of India [2006 (200) E.L.T. 377 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paying interest on interest. 7. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the case records. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held in favour of the assessee/appellant, for payment of interest to them on the amount refunded belatedly by the Revenue. The factual position in this case is that the amount which was claimed as refund by the appellant was paid by them during March, 2003 to June, 2004 on direction of the Revenue authority. It is also undisputed that the appellant has filed refund claim for Rs. 13,83,321/- on 12-7-2005 for the disputed amount. This would mean that the appellant had claimed the refund for the first time on 12-7-2005 and it is undisputed that the refund claim is within time. As per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|