TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the wrongful denial of the exemption notification. In all fairness, the appellant is entitled for interest on the amount, which has been withheld by the Department unlawfully from the date of deposit. - C/219/2006 - 407/2008, - Dated:- 23-9-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and N. Anand , Advocates, for the Appellant. Smt. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- The misc. application has been filed by the applicant for issue of direction for payment of interest consequential to Final Order No. 1864/2006, dated 1-11-2006 [2007 (210) E.L.T. 390 (Tri.)] in terms of Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules. 2. S/Shri K.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the effect that the Tribunal did not state that the Department had to pay interest for the duty deposited nor the appellant made any deposit of interest for them to claim the same. Also, he has given a finding that the department had granted refund within a period of three months from the date of their claim viz, on 24-11-2006. Hence, the appellant would not be entitled for any interest. 4.1 The learned Advocate stated that the Tribunal, in the Final Order, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the effect is that the entire case made out by the Department was not justified. By setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner, the appellants were held entitled for the benefit of the exemption Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The Department's action was a forced action and the petitioner cannot be denied interest, [paras 10 12] 2. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. v. UOI - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 9(Guj.) The amount was deposited under protest during pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, the amount in question was not a duty and hence the petitioners was neither required to submit any refund application nor to adduce evidence to prove passing on of incidence of duty. Since the amount was retained by the authorities without any justiciable reasons, the department was directed to refund the amount with interest, [paras 12-14]. 3. Bhagwati International v. UOI - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 300(P H). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Prathibha Processors v. UOI - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) to the effect that "interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on an assessee who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due or payable. The levy of interest is geared to actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of the delay in paying the tax on the due date. Essentially, it is compensatory and different from penalty which is penal in character." 5. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the department had paid the refund amount within three months from the date of passing of the order of the tribunal. Therefore, no interest liability is thereon the Department. 6. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
