TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the appeals were decided in favour of the respondent as a result of which the amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 7,52,610/- deposited on 25/08/88 and 22/02/88 became refundable. However, these amounts were appropriated by the Department against alleged confirmed demands. Aggrieved with this order of the Department appropriating the refundable pre-deposit against some alleged demands, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in pursuance of the Commissioner (Appeals) directions both the refund claims were sanctioned vide order-in-original No. 26/Refund/Ack-I/99 dated 14/12/1999. The Assistant Commissioner while sanctioning the refund to Rs. 7,52,610/- did not sanction the interest for the period of delay which accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Commissioner still issued a show cause notice dated 17/04/07 asking the respondent to show cause as to why the interest should not be granted @ 6% per annum under the provisions of Section 11BB instead of 12% and subsequently vide memorandum dated 04/05/07 approved the interest @ 6% per annum. In the meantime, the Department had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 16/11/06 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide final order No. 623/2009 - SM (BR) dated 12/06/09 observing that there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 16/11/06 of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the interest has been ordered following the decision of the Apex court in the case of ITC Ltd. In pursua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver appealed against by the respondent and, therefore, the appeal against the departments letter dated 02/12/09 was not maintainable. He also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order has ordered interest for the period of delay in refund @ 12% adv. on the basis of the Apex court's judgment in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra), while in respect of delay in refund of duty, the interest for the period of delay, in terms of the provisions of Section 11BB, is payable @ 6% per annum. He, therefore, pleaded that the interest rate mentioned in the Apex court's judgment in the case of ITC Ltd. cannot be adopted as a yard stick for all the time to come. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Jt. CDR and have gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r annum in accordance with the Apex court's judgment in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) and not @ 6% per annum specified in the Notification No. 67/03-CE (NT). In view of this, so far as merits are concerned, I do not find any infirmity in the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As regards the other ground that no appeal had been filed by the respondent against memorandum dated 04/05/07 issued by the Assistant Commissioner ordering, payment of interest @ 6% per annum, it is seen that this memorandum had been issued without granting personal hearing and that too contrary to the order dated 16/11/06 of the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently when the respondent represented to the Assistant Commissioner against this order, the ....