TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officers. Circulars issued by CBEC are binding on the field formations - interest on delayed payment allowed. Interest on interest - the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT-I Pune [2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME Court] referred - Held that: - the decision in the case not applicable as there was an inordinate delay of 12-17 years in payment of interest on refunds which is not the factual matrix in the present proceedings - interest on interest not allowed. Interest on delayed refund allowed - the relevant date for calculating the interest will be 3 months from CESTAT order dated 3/6/02 as per Para- 4 of CBEC Circular dated 8/12/2004 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No E/575/07 - ORDER No. FO/A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appeal has been filed against the earlier rejection orders and the same was reproduced by the Adjudicating Authority in his OIO dt 26/05/06. 2.1. That as per Para 4 of the CBEC Circular dated 8/12/2004 interest meter starts after 3 months from the date of the order passed by the Appellate authority / Court which in appellants case is 3/6/2002. Learned Advocate also relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments. (i) Afcons Infra structure Ltd. Vs Union of India [2006 (193) ELT 278 (A. P.)] (ii) Arthanari Loom Centra Vs Secretary CBEC [2016 (332) ELT 778 (Mod.)] (iii) Varsha Polymer Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Kandle [2014 (301) ELT 128 (Tri-Ahmd.)] (iv) CCE Vs LML Ltd [2014 (310) ELT 562 (Tri-Del)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority when OIA dt 30/7/07 was not appealed against by the Revenue. That earlier rejection of their interest request was only administrative Communications which were redressed by the appellant by writing several letters to the department that all the facts were included in grounds grounds B.1 to B. 4 of their appeal filed before the first appellate authority. That by giving specific findings on the issue in the last Para of OIA dt 30/7/2007 first appellant authority has accepted their grounds of appeal neither an appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the said OIA No. 30/7/07 nor any cross objections have been filed when the same grounds are taken by the appellant as grounds C. 1 to C. 6 of the present appeal filed before CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has been taken by CESTAT Superior Courts, as per appellant s relied upon case laws mentioned in Para 2.1, above, that interest on delay of pre-deposit refunds attracts interest as per Para 4 of CBEC Circular dated 8/12/2004. On merit the observations made by the first appellate authority in the last Para of OIA dt 30/7/2007 are not sustainable are required to be set aside. Appeal of the appellant to the extent of payment of interest on delayed payment is required to be allowed on merits. 6. Learned AR during the course of hearing also brought an additional argument that request of the appellant regarding interest on delayed pre-deposit refund was rejected under two separate orders both dt 13/11/2003 as contained in Para B of orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of interest on delayed interest payment, raised by the appellant, it is observed that in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT-I Pune [2006 (196) ELT 257 (S. C.)] the issue before the Apex Court was inordinate delay of 12-17 years in payment of interest on refunds which is not the factual matrix in the present proceedings. Secondly, this aspect was not deliberated upon by the first appellate authority and can not be entertained at this stage. 8. In view of the above observations made in Paras- 5.1 6 and also the settled proposition of law, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed to the extent included in Para 5.1 of this order and the relevant date for calculating the interest will be 3 months from CESTAT order dated 3/6/02 as per Para- 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
