TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed their appeal by remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to decide the assessable value afresh in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case as well as other various decisions. 2.2 He mentioned that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order dated 29-5-95, again confirmed the demand of duty and matter travelled to the Tribunal again; that the Tribunal, vide Order Nos. 871-72/97-WZB, dated 3-3-1997 allowed their appeal by remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of the earlier Order No. 303/94-A, dated 19-10-94 of the Tribunal. 2.3 The learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants filed an application for refund on 2-3-1997, claiming refund of Rs. 75 lakhs deposited by them along with interest thereon; that the Suptd., under letter dated 10-6-97 directed them to submit Order-in-Original, Order-in-Appeal dated 1-6-96 and statutory statement of payment of deposit which were submitted by the Appellants under letter dated 6-7-1997; that the Assistant Commissioner, under letter dated 22-8-97 called for Tribunal's Order dated 19-10-97. The learned Advocate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 has been sanctioned on 22-6-2000 within three months as stipulated under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. 4.1 The learned Counsel submitted that in Kuil Fireworks Industries v. C.C.E., 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1997 (72) ECR 529 (S.C.), in view of demand having been quashed, the Supreme Court directed that the amount "deposited by the appellant be refunded to the appellant with interest @ 12%....."; that the Tribunal, in Gulf Olefines (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madurai, 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1225 (T), following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, directed the Commissioner to make payment of interest on the amounts from the date of deposit of the amount @ 12% per annum. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Voltas Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 34 (Del.) wherein the Delhi High Court has held that even in a case where the Tribunal remands the matter for re-adjudication, the amount deposited as pre-deposit should be immediately returned as in terms of Section 35F, pre-deposit is a deposit pending appeal and that once an appeal has been decided by setting aside the Order and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, the amount of pre-deposit cannot be reta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o hold on the money merely because the adjudication was proceeding on the original show cause notice. The Bombay High Court ordered payment of interest from the date of Tribunal's Order remanding the Order. The appeal filed by Revenue has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26-1-2001 in Appeal (Civil) No. CC8437 of 2001. 4.4 He also referred to Board's Circular No. 275/37/2K-CX. 8A, dated 2-1-2002 wherein it is mentioned that pre-deposit had all along been considered to be deposits other than duty and "such deposits should be returned in the event the appellant succeeds in appeal or the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. The Board has also clarified that refund applications under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act or Section 27 of the Customs Act, need not be insisted upon. A simple letter from the person who has made such deposit requesting the return of the amount along with copy of Order-in-Appeal and attested copy of the Challan will suffice for the purpose. 4.5 Finally the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Noida, Misc. Order No. 78/2003-NB(A), dated 1-5-2003 [2003 (154) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withheld for the period 8-5-1996 to 14-1-1999. 6.1. Countering the arguments, Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that the dispute between the Appellant No. l and the Department initially was about the determination of assessable value of the cloth in their hands as processor; that the Appellate Tribunal, vide Order dated 19-10-1994 had merely remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to consider the determination of the assessable value afresh in the light of the Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.); that the said decision was not a final decision as the matter was only remanded; that in the second remand Order Nos. 871-872/97-WZB, dated 3-3-1997, the Tribunal again remanded the matter for ascertaining the margin of profit of the traders and to exclude the same from the assessable value; that it is apparent from the third Tribunal's Order No. CII/2820/WZB/1999, dated 26-10-99 [2000 (115) E.L.T. 659 (T)] that M/s. Sharda Synthetics Ltd. did not have all the copies of the declarations involved in the disputed proceedings and they had produced only 29 declarations; that thus for want of complete records on the part of the Appellant No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act (or under Section 129E of the Customs Act), the said amount is to be refunded to him and in case of delay in making the refund of such amount by Revenue, he will also be eligible to interest on such amount at the appropriate rate. This was the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuil Fireworks Industries, supra, wherein the Apex Court has directed that the amount "deposited by the Appellant be refunded to the appellant with interest @ 12%." We also observe that in the said matter out of Rs. 42 lakhs deposited by the appellant, Rs. 1.5 lakhs pertained to the payment made by them towards the impugned demand and only Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the Appellant in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal. The Madras High Court has taken quite a serious view in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., 2000 (115) E.L.T. 302 (Mad.) by holding that "When once the appeal is allowed by the CEGAT, there is no justification or reason, or rhyme, for the respondents to retain the sum of Rs. 12.5." The Madras High Court has also held that "When once the Order has been set aside by the CEGAT, it follows automatically that the respondents could have sent a advise intimating the refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
