9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. On appeal vide Final Order dated 23.04.2002 CESTAT remanded the matter back to the lower authority. On 22.04.2003 the lower authority sanctioned the refund but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund. On appeal, First Appellate Authority upheld the order of the lower authority. Finally, on appeal CESTAT vide Final Order No. A/1036/2009 dated 03.08.2008 held that unjust enrichment would not attract in case and directed the assessment to be finalised. Accordingly, assessments were finalised by the lower authority but he again held that unjust enrichment would apply. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority upheld the order of the lower authority on 20.10.2016. CESTAT, vide Final Order No. A/31035/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38,326.09 towards cess 9 30/03/2011 Order in Appeal No. 04/2011 (V-II) CE Upheld the Order in Original 10 18/06/2012 Hon'ble CESTAT Stay Order No. 1047/2012 Ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 38,326/- 11 20/10/2016 Hon'ble CESTAT Final Order No. A/31035/2016 Held unjust enrichment is not applicable, allowed the appeal 12 30/01/2017 Order in Original No. 18/2016-17 Allowed refund of Rs. 29,80,997/-, but rejected interest under Sec 11BB 13 27/04/2018 Order in Appeal No. 23/2018-19 Upheld rejection of interest 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue of refund has been settled and they have been sanctioned refund under section 11B. The only dispute is denial of interest under section 11BB. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order, interest was not paid by the department and hence the appellant in that case was also filed a writ petition. Both cases were decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh vide a common judgment dated 12.08.2018 upholding the decision of the Tribunal. Thus, the issue has also achieved finality at the hands of the jurisdictional High Court. 4. In view of the above, he would urge that this case may be decided accordingly. 5. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that this case came to a conclusion only by the Final Order of the CESTAT on 20.10.2016 and refund was paid within 3 months there after therefore interest is not payable from the date of original application. 6. I h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the Court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section. A plain reading of the section shows that date for reckoning the interest is the date of application in case of applications filed post Finance Act, 1995 and three months from the date of presidential assent to this Act for refund applications filed prior to Finance Act, 1995. In this case, the application was filed in 1992 and therefore with effect from 25.08.1995 interest has to be paid. This Bench has decided so in the case of Gayatri Timbers Private Ltd., (supra) which decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
