TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99. As regard remaining amount of refund that has arisen only from the date of Tribunal order dated 12.06.2002 by which the demand confirmed by the original order was set aside, that means the amount of duty which was set aside by the Tribunal become refundable from 3 months of Tribunal order dated 12.06.2002. Accordingly, on such amount interest is payable from 3 months of date of Tribunal order. In the present case, the period for interest has to be reckoned not only with reference to filing of refund application but also as per the provision of explanation (B)(ec) of section 11B, therefore, interest is payable in accordance with said provision. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/222/2010-DB - A/12652/2018 - Dated:- 27-11-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.06.2002 rejected the appeal filed by the department and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant but for an amount of ₹ 7,56,522/- the matter was remanded to the Commissioner. The said order of the CESTAT was challenged before Supreme Court by the department which was dismissed by order dated 31.07.2008. After various correspondences the refund claims was finally decided by Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by Order In Original No. VIII/18-19/refund/08-09 dated 25.08.2009, whereby sanctioned refund claim of ₹ 52,43,478/- with holding an amount of ₹ 7,56,522/- on the ground that involving the said amount matter stand remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise and yet to be decided by him. The claim for interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T., Hyderabad-II 2016 (336) ELT 55 (AP) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 3(SC) Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 10 (SC) Jayant Glass Inds. (P) Ltd Vs. CCE, Kolkata 2003 (155) ELT 188 (Tri.LB) Arti Steel Ltd Vs. CCE., Chandigarh 2003 (155) ELT 189 (Tri.LB) 3. Sh. K. J. Kinariwala Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that since the appellant had suo-moto deposited the duty and demand issue was settled by the order of the CESTAT, therefore, the payment of interest was rightly ordered by the lower authority from 3 months of the date of the Tribunal order. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Premp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount refundable only from 3 months of the Tribunal order dated 12.06.2002. Accordingly, the interest is payable on such amount from 3 months of the Tribunal order dated 12.06.2002. This position is in accordance with clause (B) (ec) of section 11B, which is reproduced below: B:- Relevant date means- ec:- in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; 5. As per the above clear position of law considering with the facts of the present case, the refund application filed by the applicant was admittedly filed on 14.07.1999 only, thereafter, the cause of action for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
