TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. Commissioner (A) himself in identical facts, unless until the same has been set-aside by the higher forum, he is bound to follow the judicial discipline, otherwise the public shall not have faith in such decisions taken by the appellate forum. The Ld. Commissioner (A) was bound to follow the judicial discipline on the subject. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/10698/2017 - Order No. A/13764 / 2017 - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) For the Appellant : Shri Vinay Kansara, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri L. Patra, AR ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein interest on delayed refund has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 has allowed the interest from the date of deposit, till the date of payment. But, in this case he has taken a contrary view, therefore, the impugned order is to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. The short issue involved in the present case is, whether the appellant is entitled to claim interest on delayed refund or not, in the facts of the case. I find that during the course of investigation, the appellant had paid a sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- and later on, this Tribunal held that the said amount was not payable by the appellant. In that circumstances, whether the appellant is entitled to claim i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation. Moreover, as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, this Court can order payment of interest at a very reasonable rate and accordingly, learned single Judge directed the appellants to refund a sum of ₹ 13,20,578/- relating to the final order No. 471 of 2007, dated 30-4-2007 to the first respondent with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment to the first respondent. Further, I find in the case of M/s Vishwa Glass Ceramics P. Ltd. Vide order-in-appeal No.CCESA-VAD(APP-ii)/PJ-100/2015-16 dated 18.02.2016, the Ld. Commissioner (A) himself has observed as under:- 4. I have gone through the grounds of appeal in the appeal memorandum, statement of facts, submissions mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case and particularly having regard to the fact that the amount paid by the appellant has already been refunded, we direct that the amount deposited by the appellant shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Reference in this connection may be made to Pure Helium India (P) Ltd. v. Oil Natural Gas Commission [(2003) 8 SCC 593] and McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Ors. [2006 (6) SCALE 220.] 5.2. Following the same rationale in its more recent judgement the Hon ble High court of Madras in the case of CCE, Chennai II Vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. - 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.) held:- 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the case, are that the first respondent is a Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he balance amount, no order was passed. 4. Hence, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 33592 of 2007 before this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorified mandamus, to quash the order dated 30-4-2007 passed by the second respondent, insofar as it seeks to deny the refund of ₹ 13,20,578/- deposited by the first respondent pursuant to the audit conducted by the Officer of the appellants and to direct the Officers of the appellants to order refund of ₹ 13,20,578/- together with interest @ 8% from 2-12-1997. Learned single Judge, by order dated 17-8-2010, allowed the writ petition, directing the appellants to refund a sum of ₹ 13,20, 578/- relating to the final order No. 471 of 2007 dated 30-4-2007 to the first respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment is directed to pay utmost regard to judicial discipline and give effect to orders of higher appellate authorities which are binding on them . In view of the two decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court and High court of Madras cited supra, according them the due respect and reverence I follow the ratio of the judgements and hold that in the light of these judgements the appellant is entitled for interest on amount refunded from the date of deposit till the date of refund by the department. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the interest on the refund from the date of deposit till the date of refund by the department. But, in the case in hand, while passing the order on 19.09.2016, the view of the Ld. Commissioner (A) has changed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
