2012 (10) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....officers itself, the appellant company had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,95,000/- towards duty. On 30-4-1997, the appellant filed a refund claim seeking refund of the amount deposited in view of the fact that no show cause notice had been issued to them till the date and therefore the amount deposited was to be refunded. However, this refund claim was returned as premature since the proceedings were not completed. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 22-9-1999 and in the proceedings the original adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand with interest and imposed penalty. The appeal filed against this order was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 15-9-2004. This order has attained finality since....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deposited by the appellant was neither duty nor pre-deposit and was simply an amount illegally collected without authority of law by the department. Therefore as per the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 563 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 788 (Tri.-Bang.), the appellant is eligible for interest from the date of payment of duty to the date of actual payment of refund @ as specified under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. In the case of Omjai Bhavani Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. CCE & S.T., Hyderabad reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 560 (Tri.-Bang.) also similar view was taken and it was held that interest is payable from the date of deposit till the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iate that the final decision can be taken today itself. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant. The two decisions cited by the learned counsel are in my opinion covering the issue involved in this case also. In the case of Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd., appellants were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-1993 and the officers when they visited informed the appellant that since the unit was registered with DGTD, benefit of SSI exemption was not available and they were compelled to pay an amount of Rs. 6,25,000 on 9-5-1994. Ultimately the matter reached the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal on 11-10-2002. The refund claim filed by the asse....