TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 of 2007 in W.P. (MD) No. 3167 and 3168 of 2006. 2. The Writ Appeals in W.A. (MD) Nos. 154 and 155 of 2010 are filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30-10-2009 passed in M.P. (MD) Nos. 2 and 2 of 2007 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 3167 and 3168 of 2006. 3. Since all these writ Appeals arise out of a common order and common points for determination are involved, all these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their rank in W.A. (MD) Nos. 84 and 85 of 2010. 5. The facts leading to the filling of these writ appeals, in nutsh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court, by a common order dated 11-9-2007 disposed of the said writ petitions. As per the said order, the interest was directed to be paid at the rate of 14% per annum, however, the said amount should be credited to the CENVAT Account of the writ appellants' unit with an intimation to the appellants, Since the appellants' unit does not have any CENVAT account, they filed M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 1 of 2007 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 3167 and 3168 of 2006, seeking modification of the order dated 11-9-2007. That apart, the Respondent/Department had a grievance with regard to the payment of 14% interest. Hence, they filed M.P. (MD) Nos. 2 and 2 of 2007 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 3167 and 3168 of 2006, seeking modification of the order dated 11-9-2007 that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs also, there is a mention of the word "Pre-deposit. Consequently, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, what was deposited was only "Pre-Deposit" and not "Central Excise Duty". As far as Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act is concerned, it is having its own application only in the case of Duty and not with regard to the refund of the Pre-Deposit already made. That apart, according to the learned counsel, when the appellants were suddenly forced to make such a deposit, they were not in a position to make such payment from out of their own money and only by borrowing, such payment has been made. When there is no provision under the Act with regard to the payment of interest while refunding the Pre-deposit, according to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Central Government vide Notification No. 17/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 13-5-2002 and Notification No. 67/03-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12-9-2003. As per the said Notifications, the rate of interest to be paid is 8% from 2-9-2003 to 11-9-2003 and 6% from 12-9-2003 to till date. The learned Senior Standing Counsel has submitted that even as per the challan, through which the payment has been made, what was paid was only "Basic Excise Duty". Apart from this, according to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, as far as Central Excise Department is concerned, except Duty, no other payment was used to be received. Though the term "Pre-deposit" has been used in the refund order dated 7-12-2005, according to the learned counsel the said "Pre-Deposit"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edly, a surprise inspection was conducted in the premises of the appellants and deposit has been made by them. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it is a "Pre-Deposit" and according to the Respondent, even assuming it is a "Pre-Deposit", it is towards only the "Central Excise Duty" to be paid. The stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that only if it is a "Central Excise Duty", the Notifications issued under Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act are having its application and not with reference to the "Pre-Deposit". As per the refund order dated 7-12-2005, the term used is only "Pre-Deposit". But, as per the challan through which the payment has been made, it is "Basic Excise Duty". Now, the stand of the lear....