Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Oil India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh

2016 (10) TMI 613 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit u/s 35 F of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Circular No. 802/35/2004-cx date 8/12/2014 issued from File No. 387/5/2001-JC - Held that: - circular clarified that Delay beyond the period of three months will be viewed adversely and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated against the concerned defaulting officers. All concerned are requested to note that default will entail an interest liability, if such liability accrues by reason of any orders of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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/76031/2016 - Dated:- 15-9-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Member (Technical) And Shri P. K. Choudhary Member (Judicial) Shri Ravi Raghavan or Sab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e pre-deposits of ₹ 2 Crore + ₹ 3 Crore on 25/1/2000 as per the directions contained in stay order No. S/99-101/99-C dated 10/11/99 passed by this bench. That the issue was finally decided in favour of the appellant as per final order NO. 137-39/02-C dt 3/6/2002 on 16/8/03 & on 24/9/03 refund of pre-deposit made by the appellant, as per stay order dt 10/11/99, was paid to the appellant but no interest as per CBEC circular 802/35/2004-cx dt 8/12/2004 was paid to the appellant. Tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

per following case laws. (i) Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2006 (196) ELT 257 (S. C] (ii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI [2015 (324) ELT 299 (Guj)] 3. Sh. S. Mukhopadhyay Suptd (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that payment of interest on ₹ 2crore + ₹ 3crore deposits was rejected by order No. 58/Ref/ACD/2002/6022 dt 13/11/2003, as recorded in order No. (18) 1/ REF/ACD/98-P-II/1589 dt 26/5/06 and no appeal against such rejection of interest claim has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore the second appellate 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assed by this bench. It is observed from the case records that CBEC vide its Circular No. 802/35/2004-cx date 8/12/2014 issued from File No. 387/5/2001-JC, has issued following clarifications to the field offices. 4. Accordingly, the contents of the Circular No. 127/37/2000-CX. 8A dated 2-1-2002 [2002 (139) ELT T38], as to the modalities for return of the pre-deposits are reiterated. It is again reiterated that ion terms of Hon ble Supreme Court s order such pre-deposit must be returned within 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orders of the CESTAT/ Court, such orders will have to be complied with and it may be recoverable from the concerned officers. 5.1. It is a well accepted legal proposition that Circulars issued by CBEC are binding on the field formations. Secondly, a consistent stand 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in Para B of order dated 26/5/06 passed by the Adjudicating authority and that no appeal against the said orders of rejection was filed by the appellant. It is observed from the case records that orders dated 13/11/2003 were agitated by the appellant before the lower authorities considering the same as Administrations orders by writing suitable letters. At no stage department intimated the appellant that appeals against orders dated 13/11/2003 should be filed by the appellant. All these facts w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version