TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed this appeal against rejection of payment of interest on refund of Rs. 3,30,663/- deposited during the period 21-4-93 to 28-12-95. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that by Order-in-Original dated 24-12-79, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,30,663.00. The appellants challenged the Adjudication Order before the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is further observed that the payment of interest does not apply as the matter was sub-judiced till November, 2002 and the refund of principal amount was admissible only after the date of order dated 10-9-2002 of the Hon ble Court as it reached finality. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Central excise. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 11 (A.P.) and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Shreeji Colour Chem. Industries reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 199 (S.C.). 4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. ITC Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). The Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of I.T C. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable herein. Ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreeji Colour Chem Industries (supra). In that case, refund was filed under Rule 173L of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules for return of the duty paid goods in the factory of the manufacturer. I find that the case of Shreeji Colour Chem. Industries (supra) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
