9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants and the appeal was allowed the appeal with consequential reliefs. The appellant, thereupon, filed application for refund of the pre-deposit made in this appeal. Though refund was sanctioned it was adjusted by refund sanctioning authority towards alleged outstanding interest liability/arrears of Rs. 26,19,858/- related to an earlier case. Aggrieved by such order, they filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) mainly alleging that such adjustments was without following the principles of natural justice and also that the appellants are not liable to pay arrears of interest in the earlier case. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein upheld the order of adjustment passed by the refund sanctioning authority. Hence this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned refund of Rs. 25 lakhs to this interest liability. The appellant was not given a personal hearing before such adjustments/recovery. He argued that the issue of liability to pay interest with regard to Rs. 48,51,589/- has not attained finality as the demand of interest has not been quantified or determined by a competent authority. The appellant was issuing correspondence with the department requesting for determining the interest liability. He referred to letter dated 19.04.2016 and 20.03.2017, wherein, the appellant had put forward contentions with respect to their non-liability to pay interest. These were not considered by the adjudicating authority or Commissioner (Appeals).They unilaterally decided to adjust/appropriate the sanctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. As per Rule14, the appellant is liable to pay interest on the wrongly availed credit. The adjudicating authority while sanctioning the refund has rightly appropriated the arrears of interest due to the department. 5. Heard both sides. 6. From the facts as narrated above, it is seen that vide the order impugned herein, the authority below has upheld the decision of the refund sanctioning authority directing to appropriate the sanctioned refund of Rs. 25 lakhs towards arrears of interest due from the appellant. The appellant had availed ineligible credit of Rs. 41,51,589/-which was reversed by them. While reversing the wrongly availed credit they did not reverse the interest on this amount. The show-cause notice issued propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrongly availed credit and also quantify the same, if any. As per Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the assessee is eligible for interest on the pre deposit if not refunded within three months from the date of the communication of the order passed by the court/Tribunal. In the present case, the appellant contends that the Tribunal has passed an order on 18.12.2017. The refund is sanctioned only on 19.06.2018. Thus, the appellant would be eligible for interest for the intervening period, which has also to be considered by the adjudicating authority. 7. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside to the extent of adjusting the sanctioned refund towards arrears of interest liability and remanded to the adjudicating authority, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
