9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 entire amount, he withheld an amount of Rs. 8,73,620.27 out of total sanctioned amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 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 3-4-2002. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 8,71,165/- was found due and payable to the appellants in June 1987 but was actually paid on 10-6-2002 due to the illegal and arbitrary action of the Department. Therefore, the learned Advocate prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 difficult for us to say that action of that officer in withholding refund was illegal. After 9 years, the appellant got a favourable decision from the CEGAT, New Delhi holding that the demand for less charges raised in RT 12 is inva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
