TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in brief are as under :- The appellants were the manufacturers of spun blended yarns. There was a dispute about classification of the blended yarn manufactured by them from Viscose fibre and non-cellulosic synthetic waste. The party claimed assessment under Item No. 18III(i) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, while the Central Excise authorities vide Show Cause Notice dated 24-1-1984, wanted it to classify under Item No. 18III(ii) of that tariff, at a higher rate of Central Excise duty. 3. The party filed a writ petition in Rajasthan High Court. The High Court on 6-2-1984 passed an interim Order granting stay of the recovery, subject to the furnishing of a solvent security for the amount demanded, and interest @ 15% per annum. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest amounting to Rs. 17158.92 paid on the differential duty. 10. Vide letter dated 17-3-1987 the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Ajmer declined to sanction refund and directed the party to seek clarification from the High Court. 11. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) New Delhi vide Order dated 28-4-1989 observed that the letter dated 17-3-1987 of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ajmer is not appealable decision or Order. He had dismissed the appeal as pre-mature. 12. The present appeal is against this Order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals). 13. In the ground of appeal the appellants submitted that when there was no differential duty and their claim for assessment under Item No. 18III(i) had been accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. The Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan vide their interim Order dated 6-2-1984 had granted stay of the recovery subject to the furnishing of solvent security for the amount demanded, and interest @ 15% per annum. There was no direction that the party should pay the amount of differential duty demanded under Show Cause Notice dated 24-1-1984. I find that the appellants on their own paid not only the amount of differential duty but also the amount of interest calculated from the date of clearance to the date of the payment of the differential duty in dispute. 19. Subsequently, the High Court had ordered that even if the final orders are passed against the party, demand was not to be enforc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not ordered the party to deposit the disputed amount of Central Excise duty and the interest. They had ordered for a Bank Guarantee. On their own the party deposited not only the amount of differential duty but also the amount of interest calculated on their own. There was no provision under Central Excise law for collection of such an interest. 24. In the circumstances, there is no authority of law for keeping this amount by the Central Excise department. 25. It will not be in the interest of justice to ask the party to go to the Hon ble High Court for the refund of this amount when the facts and circumstances of the case clearly establish that the Department had no authority to keep this amount. 26. Therefore, in the interest of jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
