9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mr. Amandeep Kumar, ARs ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for not granting interest on delayed refund. 2. The facts of the case are that on 16.03.1998, the annual production capacity under Compound Levy Scheme was fixed under Section 3A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the competent authority. The said order was set aside by this Tribunal vide its order dt. 29. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal filed by the Revenue with the direction that the predeposit made by the appellant shall not be refunded to the appellant till the decision of the adjudicating authority in the matter. Thereafter, the Revenue again filed a review petition and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, on 17.10.2008 a demand of Rs. 26,46,491/- was confirmed against the appellant in remand proceedings and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Now question arises (i) whether the appellant is entitled for interest on delayed refund or not? and (ii) if yes, then from which date? 4. It is a fact on record that initially after the decision of this Tribunal, the appellant filed the refund claim on 14.09.2005. The said application was kept pending by the Revenue and the same was not entertained. It was entertained only after the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest after three months from 14.09.2005 till 31.10.2008, as on the said date, the refund claim has been sanctioned. I find that it is apparent on record that the said refund was sanctioned but was adjusted against the demand which was not sustained. In that circumstance, I hold that the contention of the ld. AR is not acceptable. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
