9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as detailed at Para 11 of the impugned Order-in-Appeal are as follows:- "11. Now I come to the facts of the case. I can break up the chronology of this refund claim in two parts. (1) 24.01.2005 to 31.01.2008 Which is period when appellant filed for refund and the Assistant Commissioner rejected the entire refund claim of Rs. 42,68,686/-. Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 03.6.2008 held that part of the claim of Rs. 13,73,664/- was rightly rejected on the grounds of limitation whereas the remaining claim of Rs. 28,94,976/- was found admissible but the same being hit by unjust enrichment was transferred to consumer welfare fund. Order of Commissioner to refund the amount but credit it to the Fund is recognised as an order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.06.2008. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2009, held that bar of unjust enrichment will not be applicable to the said refund claim and therefore, the said amount may be refunded to the appellant. The learned Consultant, therefore, submits that interest may also be paid to them from 24.04.2005 to 10.03.2010, on which date the refund of Rs. 28,94,976/- was made to them in pursuance to the said order of the Tribunal. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. UOI & Ors. 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Salem Cylinders Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Salem 2011 (274) ELT 566 (Tri. Chennai). 4. The learned Authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of law, Revenue cannot be held to be liable to grant interest subsequent to the period from 03.6.2008. The appellant instead of Welfare Fund became eligible for the refund amount in the light of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, whatever was due to Welfare Fund was liable to be transferred to the Appellant. The appellant is therefore rightfully entitled for the refund amount along with interest for the period from 24.4.2005 to 02.6.2008, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 6. We have gone through the case laws submitted by the learned Consultant. It is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) has held that interest liability would commence from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
