TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect from 27-5-1997 till the date of refund i.e. 20-1-2006. Earlier the adjudicating authority had refused to grant any interest on the refund amount. 2. The facts of the case relevant for the decision are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium profile, bars & rods, tubes & pipes etc. classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and had imported LDPE granules under DEEC (Duty Free) Scheme in the year 1985-86. The import has obviously fulfilled certain condition which could have been found not complied with and therefore, the Department insisted for payment of duty and accordingly, the respondents deposited an amount of Rs. 25,69,245/- on 31-8-96 and a sum of Rs. 3,81,617/- on 25-10-96.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings and, therefore, the refund claim was premature. Being aggrieved, the respondents again filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. Meanwhile, the respondents approached the Settlement Commission, Mumbai and in the proceeding before the Settlement Commission, the total duty liability of the respondents was accepted as Rs. 4,80,737.40 + interest amounting to Rs. 3,50,045/-. It was also decided that after adjusting the amount already paid, the respondents were required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,71,375/- within 30 days. Taking into consideration the said order of the Settlement Commission dated 29-11-2004, the appeal filed by the respondents was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal on 24-12-2004 hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2-05 and 3-1-06 and the refund having been made on 26-1-06 considering the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no interest could have been ordered to be paid by the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the Department, since the duty liability having been determined in terms of the order of the Settlement Commission dated 29-11-2004 and thereafter, in accordance with the direction issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 24-12-2004, the respondents having approached the Department for refund claim with all the necessary details in that regard by 3.1.06 and the amount having been refunded on 20-1-06, there was no liability to pay any interest in the matter. Reliance is placed in the decision in the matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd., the decision of the Tribunal in Indian Thermoplastics (P) Ltd. cannot be held to be a good law. 5. As already seen above, the fact that in terms of the order dated 1-5-2000 passed by the adjudicating authority, the claim for refund was rejected on the ground that it was premature and that claim can be entertained only after determination of the duty liability which was the subject matter of the decision by the Commissionerate at Mumbai pursuant to the two show cause notices issued by the same are not in dispute. Though the said order was sought to be challenged by the respondents, meanwhile, the respondents preferred to approach the Settlement Commission for finalization of the duty lia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12-2004 by the Commissioner (Appeals), in terms of the said order which had directed appropriate verification of the necessary details to ascertain the quantum of refund, the respondents submitted the necessary details by 3-1-2006. 7. The third aspect of the matter is that the respondent himself referred the matter to the Settlement Commission for determining the duty liability. Accordingly, the same was determined by the Settlement Commission on 29-11-04 and the same was accepted by the respondents. 8. The above three facts clearly reveal that the respondents did not react against the finding of the authority that his refund claim under the application dated 27-2-97 was premature till 29-11-06 as the quantum of duty liability o....