Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Tungbhadra Pulp & Board Mills Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 359/2004 dated 31/08/2004 passed by Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise, BELGAUM.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum NO. 71, CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Tungbhadra Pulp & Board Mills Ltd P.O. Munirabad-583234, KOPPAL DIST - 00 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Appellant

Mr. Laxminarayan Goyal, Advocate Mr. Kiran S. Javali, Advocate No.37, 11th Main, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore  560 052. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27/07/2015

Date of Decision: 27/07/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21693 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the dispute as regards undervaluation of the assessees final product was going on between the respondent and the Revenue. The same traveled up to the Tribunal, who vide its order dated 27.10.1999 finalized the same in favour of the assessee. As a consequence, the assessee filed refund claim of the pre-deposits made by them to the extent of Rs.9,14,000/- on 20.1.2000. The said refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority but was allowed by Commissioner (A). Thereafter the issue of interest cropped up.

2.1 The interest claimed by the assessee was originally rejected by the original adjudicating authority. On an appeal, Commissioner (A), by taking note of various decisions of the High Courts held that Revenue is under legal obligation to pay interest on the pre-deposited amount within a period of 3 months from the date when the refund claim was filed by the assessee.

2.2 Revenue being aggrieved with the said order, has challenged the same on the ground that no interest liability incurs in respect of pre-deposits made by the assessee.

3. We find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Courts laying down that interest is applicable even to the deposits made during the period of adjudications. In fact the CBEC vide its Circular No.F.No.275/37/2K-CX. dated 2.1.2002 has considered the entire case law on the subject and has directed the field authorities to decide all the refund applications within a period of three months inasmuch as the same would attract interest liability.

4. As such, we find no merits in the Revenues appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

3