TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the hearing. In this case, the case was posted for hearing on 7-12-10 and on the request of the appellant, the case was adjourned to 23-2-11. The case came up for hearing again on 2-6-11 and on appellant's request the case was adjourned to 7-7-11. On 7-7-11 also the appellant was not present and the case was adjourned to 11-8-11 and on 11-8-11 also the appellant was not present and sought for adjournment and the case was finally posted for hearing today. Thus, four adjournments have already been granted in this case and the case came up for hearing for the 5th time also, the appellant is seeking adjournment. The grounds adduced for seeking adjournment have been made on earlier occasions also. If the person concerned is sick the appellant s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess interest on delayed payment of duty during the period from June, 2005 to July, 2006. They had paid interest on delayed payment of duty @ 24% per annum as against the prescribed rate of 13% per annum, thereby paying excess interest of Rs. 2,29,649/-. The said refund claim was rejected by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 04/NGP-1/2007/Ref, dated 22-1-2007 on the ground that there is no provision in Central Excise Act or Rules thereunder for refund of interest. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order-in-appeal No. SVS/169/NGP-I/2007, dated 30-3-2007 set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal of the appellant. This order-in-appeal attained finality as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the duty amount demanded. On depositing the amount, the appeal was heard and the impugned order was passed wherein the learned lower appellate authority upheld the order-in-original dated 30-9-2008 passed by the original adjudicating authority and also appropriated the amount of Rs. 2,29,649/- paid by the appellant as a pre-deposit on 20-3-2009. The appellant is before me against the impugned order. 5. The ground urged in the appeal memorandum is that the impugned order is bad in law. It is their contention that they have file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise Act, 1944 and the Rules allowing suo motu taking of credit or refund without sanction by the proper officer and, therefore, the findings of the appellate authority in the impugned order upholding the recovery of the suo motu refund taken is correct in law and has to be sustained. Interest on such a recovery under Section 11AB is also correct in law and I hold accordingly. 9. The only issue left for consideration is whether any penalty is imposable on the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is on record that in the instant case the appellant took suo motu credit of the refund on 25-4-2007 in terms of the order-in-appeal dated 30-3-2007 and this fact was also intimated by the appellant to the department vide l....