TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s initially claimed as refund if reduced by the adjudicating authority, but later restored by the Appellate Authority, second refund claim need not be filed again in claiming that amount - appeal restored. - E/10495/2014-SM - A/13538/2017 - Dated:- 9-11-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant: Mr. A Shreezi Ms. Dimple Gohil (Advocate) For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Gohil (A.R.) ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against order-in-appeal No.DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-228-13-14 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs and Service Tax Vapi. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed rebate claim amounting to ₹ 72,05,780/- on 20.01.2010. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount the same was reduced to the extent of outstanding interest amount pending against the appellant. Initially, the amount was calculated by the department, unilaterally as Rs. 23,01,034/-, which included the interest amount of ₹ 15,02,571/- and thus the interest on interest was ₹ 7,98,463/-. Therefore, aggrieved by the said appropriation without opportunity of hearing to them they filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, accepted that the correct interest amount should be ₹ 15,02,571/-. Thereafter, they have requested the department to reduce the appropriated amount to ₹ 15,02,571/- and to release the balance amount of the sanctioned rebate claims. It is his contention that since the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant which was appropriated by the adjudicating authority, considering it as ₹ 23,01,034/- unilaterally without affording an opportunity to the appellants to explain the said outstanding amount. It was the contention of the appellant before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the amount of ₹ 23,01,034/- was wrongly appropriated as interest, since an amount of ₹ 7,98,463/- was charged as interest on the interest. Later the Appellate Authority accepted the said argument. Thus, the amount of ₹ 7,98,463/- was considered to have been appropriated in excess. This wrong appropriation of ₹ 7,98,463/- cannot be considered as a separate refund amount and its claim is barred by limitation when the appellant reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
