TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is the case of the petitioner that it had preferred an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated June 15, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (hereafter the 'the Tribunal') in Excise Appeal bearing No. EDM-641 of 2006 in so far as the Tribunal did not pass any direction for payment of interest in spite of holding that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the sum of Rs. 14.98 crore. The appeal was admitted by this Court on May 5, 2011 for hearing on the substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not passing any direction for payment of interest in favour of the appellant in spit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember 12, 2003 as the circular dated December 8, 2004 did not mention any rate of interest and as such interest was payable @ 6 % per annum in terms of the said notification dated September 12, 2003. The petitioner contended that this Court having held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Limited (supra) is applicable to the petitioner's case, interest was payable @ 12% per annum and as there was no specific order as to the rate of interest, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise held that the interest was payable @ 6% per annum in terms of the said notification dated September 12, 2003 issued for the purposes of Section 11BB of the Act and, therefore, the petitioner seeks for clarificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2005 to October 11, 2007 and, therefore, the rate of interest determined in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Limited (supra) would be applicable and, therefore, the Court may clarify and/or modify the judgment and order dated August 12, 2011 so that the respondent is directed to pay interest @ 12 % per annum. On behalf of Revenue, an affidavit-in-opposition of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise has been filed and it is contended that an appeal being SLP No.35919/2011 has been preferred against the Division Bench's judgment and order dated August 12, 2011 along with a stay application which is now pending for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the matter is sub-judice before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for clarification and/or modification of the order limited to specifying the rate of interest of interest which the petitioner would be entitled to claim on the delayed refund of the predeposit amount of Rs. 14.98 crore. While disposing of the appeal this Court held : "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that in this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter finally on February 24, 2005 and thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Limited, reported in (2005) ELT 15, interest was payable for the period commencing from three....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....70 days. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ITC Limited (supra) as regards refund of amount deposited under Section 35F was governing the field as the Supreme Court has upheld the direction for payment of interest and quantified it to be @ 12% per annum. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the pre-deposit made as a pre-condition for the hearing of appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was, on the assessee being ultimately successful, refundable to the assessee with interest as there was no provision in the Central Excise Act for payment of interest on such refund. It is in the course of hearing before the Supreme Court that the Learned Solicitor General after taking instruct....