TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for their job work for the manufacture of Wear resistance and corrosion resistance parts. The officers of Head Quarters Preventive Unit of the first respondent visited the factory of the petitioner on 27.06.2007 and disputed the availing of Cenvat credit on the inputs used for job work. As per the direction of the Head Quarters Preventive Unit, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and thereafter deposited an additional amount of Rs.5,760/-. The amount demanded by the respondents was claimed to be without any authority of law, as there were no order of the competent authority, to claim this amount from the petitioner, as the show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 02.01.2008. The petitioner contested the show cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication till the date of refund of such duty: PROVIDED that where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of refund of such duty. Explanation: Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal [,National Tax Tribunal] or any court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise [or Deputy Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt, which he had deposited as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('The Tribunal'). 2. Notice was issued and an opportunity was given to the Revenue to file a reply on 11th December, 2007 but they have chosen not to file any reply to the application. 3. The case before the Tribunal was decided in favour of the Assessee and, therefore, the Assessee is entitled to return of the amount that he had pre-deposited before the Tribunal. 4. Merely because the Revenue has preferred an appeal and a substantial question of law has been framed does not mean that the Revenue can hold back the amount, which was pre-deposited by the Assessee pursuant to an order pa....