9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Appellant Shri A.K. Dixit, Advocate, for Respondent ORDER The present appeal is filed by Revenue challenging Order-in-Appeal No. 38-39-CE/APPL/KNP/2006 dated 19/01/2006, through which ld. Commissioner (Appeals), allowed payment of interest on delayed payment of refund. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anpur. As per said order dated 03/11/1999, Redemption Fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- was appropriated. The respondent-assessee again approached this Tribunal which decided the matter through Final Order No. A/812-14/2000(NB)DB dated 11/09/2000, and remanded the matter again for De-novo Adjudication. Second time De-novo Adjudication resulted in passing of Order-in-Original No. 02/Commr./Cust/Adj/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal preferred by Revenue is that the Redemption Fine cannot be treated as duty and therefore Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962, is not applicable to said refund. 4. Heard ld. D.R. who has supported the ground of appeal. 5. Heard ld. A.K. Dixit, for the respondent who pointed out that Cross Objection was also filed through Cross Objection No. E/CROSS/157/2006. The contention in the Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962. That being so the argument of the Revenue that provisions of Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable for delayed refund of Redemption Fine is contradictory to the order already passed by the ld. Deputy Commissioner, which was not challenged by Revenue. In view of the said case, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue. Therefore, both the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
