TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor rejected the claim. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Collector s order. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim in its order dated 9-4-1999. The refund was granted on 10-1-2001 after adjusting a pending confirmed demand. The appellants claimed interest on delayed refund of Customs duty. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, in his letter dated 13-12-2001, declined the grant of interest. There was correspondence with the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore on the issue. The Commissioner informed the appellants in his letter dated 25-6-2002 that the appellant is not entitled for the interest. The appellants approached the CESTAT. The CESTAT held that the appellant should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants challenge the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Shri A.K.J. Nambiar, the learned advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate urged the following points :- (i) The order of the CESTAT in favour of the appellant was issued on 9-4-1999. The refund was not paid to the appellant till 10-1-2001. As per the provisions of Section 27A, when an order dismissing a claim for refund has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, then the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be an order passed under Section 27(2) on the application for refund preferred by the assessee. The Section also mandates that apart from the refund amount, interest at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant along with the claim of refund filed as early as on 15-2-1993. (iv) The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the appellant had not furnished the necessary documents for granting the refund claim consequent to the CEGAT s order is factually incorrect. In the instant case, the documents based on which the refund had to be granted were all submitted at the time of provisional assessment and these were with the department at all times. (v) Pursuant to CEGAT s order, the department had only to grant the benefit of the said order and issue orders sanctioning consequential refund. This being the case, no further documents were required to be produced by the appellants and hence the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below [five] percent and not exceeding thirty percent per annum as is for the time being fixed by [the Central Government, by notification in the Official gazette], on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: Provided that where any duty, ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 27 in respect of an applicant under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
