TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;I have gone through the case records, grounds of appeal and submissions made at the time of personal hearing. The appellant claims 1. Interest on the refund amount already sanctioned and 2. Interest on Interest From the facts of the case, it is seen that the duty amount demanded vide OIO dated 21-2-2003 was paid on 31-3-04 and 11-6-04. In other words, when their appeal was pending before the CESTAT, the appellants had effected the payment against the confirmed demand. Subsequently, CESTAT vide its order dated 15-2-2006 had remanded the matter to the lower authority with the following observations : 1. The demand is premature when the appellants application for extension of warehousing is still pending with the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y on 12-10-2006. The refund was finally granted only on 16-1-2007. It is the department's contention that since the refund was finally granted within three months from the date of appellants refund application i.e. 12-10-06, no interest is liable to be paid. The appellant however, refutes this contention on the ground that as per the decisions in the following judgments, the department has no authority to retain any pre-deposit beyond three months from the date of final order. 1. Tollin Rubbers (P) Ltd. v. CC, 2007 (211) E.L.T. 246 (T) = 2007 (6) S.T.R. 71 (Tri.-Bang.) 2. Voltas Limited v. UOI - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 34 (Del.) 3. India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n on the interest on interest is therefore not acceptable. In view of the above, I order payment of interest on the amount refunded for the period beyond three months from the date of CESTAT order till the date of refund. The appeal is partially allowed. 2. This is challenged by the Revenue on various grounds. It is stated that the refund of the amounts can be done only under Section 27 of the Customs Act after satisfying all issues including unjust enrichment. It is stated that Section 28D of Customs Act presumes that incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer, unless the contrary is proved by the refund applicant. The question as to whether the duty had been passed on to the consumer is eventually a question of facts, and in ....