TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original No. 25/2003/REFUND dated 28-4-2003, passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the claim of the appellants for interest of Rs. 8,71,165/- from 8-6-1987 till 10-6-2002. 2. Shri E.K. Madhavan, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri R. N. Viswanath, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. The learned Advocate made the following submissions :- Date Events 19-12-1986 Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras allowing appeal holding Mamooties, Pick Axes are not liable to duty. 27-5-1987 Submitted claim for refund of Rs. 14,08,913.82 paid as duty on the above goods for the period from 1-3-1986 - 18-3-1987. Though the Assistant Collector sanctioned the enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Rs. 8,71,165/- at the rate of 18% from 8-6-1987 till 10-6-2002. 28-4-2003 Order-in-Original No. 25/2003/REFUND, passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the claim dated 5th September 2002. 8-7-2003 Order-in-Appeal No. 209/2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal. The learned Advocate strongly contended that the original claim for refund in respect of Mamooties and Pick Axes is finally settled in January 1987. A part of the refund was withheld by the Department on 8-9-1987 and the withheld part was refunded on 8-3-2002. In view of these indisputable facts, it is not correct to say that the disputed part of the original refund claim was settled as per the Order dated 3-4-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue proceeded against the appellants for erroneous refund. The proceedings culminated in Order-in-Original No. 38/2002 dated 3-4-2002 sanctioning the amount of Rs. 8,71,165/- which was recovered. On 10-6-2002, this amount was paid to the appellants. In this case also there is no delay. A reading of the chronology events reveal that at each stage the excise authorities have taken a particular stand in the light of their understanding of the law. When a part of the refund was withheld in 1987, the appellants owed some money to the Government and this refund was adjusted in the demand made in RT 12. The officer who took the decision, perhaps, acted in the interest of the Revenue. At this stage, after 18 years it would be very difficul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
