9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se are that on 11.04.2005, the Superintendent, Central Excise asked the respondent to deposit differential excise duty of Rs. 35,95,092/- for the period October 2004 to February 2005 and Rs. 75,25,997/- for the period March 2005 to September 2005. The respondents in response to the Superintendent's letter dated 11.04.2005 replied that their activity does not amount to manufacture in terms of Circular No.19/19/94-CE dated 09.02.1994, but on persuasion of the department, on 30.09.2005, the respondent debited Rs. 40.00 Lakhs under protest in their RG-23A part-II and further debited a sum of Rs. 3,25,54,536/- under protest during the period October 2005 to April 2008. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was issued to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled for claim of interest after three months from the date of filing of the refund claim i.e. 18.11.2016 till 07.03.2017. In that circumstances, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that as the respondent has paid the amount under protest therefore, they are entitled for interest from the date of deposit till its realization. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. We find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has examined the issue and observed as under:- "5.1 I have carefully gone through the facts and records of the case as well as the submissions made by the appellant. I find that the adjudicating authority was fully convinced that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the refunds, to sanction the amounts along with applicable interest. There was no need for the appellant to make separate request for the payment of interest due on the amounts refunded to them in compliance of the Tribunal's order. The impugned order rejecting the payment of interest is bad in law as the same has been issued without any such provision having been there in the statute. The non-payment of interest, despite having been requested by the appellant, and by citing untenable/irrelevant reasons, is akin to adding salt to the injury. 5.1 I find that the appellant has further contended that interest should be paid ot him at commercial rate. In this regard, I find that Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of CIT, Gujrat Vs Gujrat F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 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." 7. We further take note of the fact that the amount paid by the appellant was under protest during the course of investigation itself. Therefore, the said amount is not paid towards duty and was a deposit by the appellant under protest. Moreover, this Tribunal vide its final order dated 13.11.2016 has held that the respondent was not liable to pay any duty therefore the amount of refund was no duty and was only a deposit. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ucal Fuel Systems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
