TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- As the Revenue had sanctioned refund claim on 03.6.2008 and transferred the amount to Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions 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 - Decisions in the case of Salem Cylinders Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Salem (2013 (6) TMI 579 - CESTAT CHENNAI) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 28,94,976/- (2) The appellant challenged this order of the Commissioner Appeals before the CESTAT which by its order dated 11.12.2009, held that bar of unjust enrichment had been wrongly applied by Commissioner Appeals and set-aside the order of the Commissioner Appeals. However the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner Appeals on limitation aspect were upheld by the Tribunal. In view of this there is no interest payable on ₹ 13,73,664/- at all. As a consequent to the Tribunal s order, the Assistant Commissioner refunded the amount of ₹ 28,94,776/- to them on 11.03.2010. This refund was made within three months of the order of CESTAT and hence no interest is payable to the appellants. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per law. Hence, department was liable to pay interest only from 24.04.2005 to 02.6.2008. 5. On perusal of the records and after consideration of the contentions of both sides, we find as per admitted facts, the refund claim was submitted on 24.01.2005 and it was sanctioned on 03.06.2008, but was transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund as it was held that same was hit by unjust enrichment. Therefore, the interest would be payable after three months from the date of submission of refund claim, which means from 24.4.2005. As the refund was sanctioned on 03.6.2008, the interest would be payable up to the date of sanction of refund claim, i.e. up to 02.06.2008. On a subsequent date i.e. 11.12.2009, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioned from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund. Therefore, the impugned order is in conformity with the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the case of Salem Cylinders Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Salem (supra), the facts are different and it related to provisional assessment in that case. The refund amount was ordered to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment and the assessee therein had filed refund claim subsequent to the said order. The facts and issue in the present case are entirely different. 7. In the light of above analysis, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order-in-appeal and the hence same is upheld. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
