TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the impugned Order has adjusted Rs. 3,41,625/- out of the refund amounts of pre-deposit consequent upon the Order No. A/243/WZB/2005/C-I, dated 18-3-2005 [2005 (191) E.L.T. 865 (Tribunal)] of the Tribunal. The Adjudicating Authority has also rejected the claim of the appellant for interest on refund of pre-deposit from the date of Tribunal's Order on the ground that the interest on delayed refunds are governed under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as per this Section interest was only due after expiry of time limit of three months from the date of filing of the application. He also averred that the claim was filed on 4-4-2005 and the same was decided within the time limit prescribed under the said Section and therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns as well as appeals before the Tribunal against the orders conforming the demands; that neither coercive action for recovery of the same nor adjustment/appropriation against any refund can be permitted till disposal of the stay application as held by the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 109 (Tribunal-Mumbai); that such action is contrary to the Board's Circular No. 396/29/98-CX., dated 2-6-1998. They also relied upon the following decisions in support of their contention that recovery or adjustment of any amount cannot be made when such order is under challenge in appeal : (1) National Steel Industries Ltd. - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 616 (M.P.) (2) CCE,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture to recover the amount. At last he also contended that the impugned order is not in accordance with judicial discipline; that Section 11BB is not applicable since it is not a refund and therefore the claim of interest may be accepted. They have requested for payment of Rs. 3,41,625/- which was appropriated out of the pre-deposited amount; Rs. 47,144/- interest at 18% per annum on Rs. 10,17,222/- delayed payment from date of Tribunal's order to 9-6-2005 date of issue of cheque; interest at 12% on the appropriated amount of Rs. 3,41,625/- from 9-6-05 until date of issue of cheque; and interest at 12% per annum on the interest amount of Rs. 47,155/- from 9-6-05 till date of issue of cheque. 7. I have carefully gone through the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed interest on the interest due for the period from 18-3-05, to 9-6-05 on pre-deposited amount refunded on 9-6-05. In the foregoing paragraph I have held that the appellant is not entitled for the interest as refund of pre-deposited amount has been paid to them within three months from the date of Tribunal's order. Therefore, question of interest on interest does not arise. Also as regards interest on interest, Hon'ble Tribunal (Larger Bench) in the case of M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2005 (185) E.L.T. 253 (Tri.-LB) has held that interest on delayed payment of interest not permissible under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made there under for want of any specific ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 343 (Tri.-Chennai) has held that in the case of Stay of order the Deputy Commissioner's order of duty recovery of dues adjudged against appellant by enforcing bank guarantee is premature, since appeal having been filed before Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal (LB) in the case of M/s. Ramavision Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 518 (Tri.-LB) has held that for recovery of dues, adjustment of refund amounts towards duty liability under order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) even before expiry of three months time due for filing appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. When specific direction issued by Dy. Commissioner to refund entire amount, the department cannot adjust amount of Rs. 2,....