TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 746
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Central Excise Tariff. During the period of dispute, the block board, flush door, and plywood were dutiable, while Panel doors and baton doors were fully exempt from duty. The allegation against the Appellant was that during the period of dispute they cleared the dutiable goods flush doors and block board in the guise of the exempted goods viz. panel doors and baton doors. The Commissioner vide order-in-original No.4/98 d. 14.01.1998 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 88,72,686/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 98,72,686/-. However, on appeal being filed to the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide final order no.392/2005-EX dated 20.04.2005 remanded the matter to the Commissioner for de-novo adjudication after supplying non reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,303/- against the Appellant company with penalty of same amount and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 Lakh each on Shri T.K. Diwan and Shri D.N. Gupta, the Directors. The duty demand for the remaining amount was dropped. The appellant company, thereafter, filed an application for refund under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 21.10.2008. The Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 13.01.2009 appropriated an amount of Rs. 27,78,606/- representing the duty demand of Rs. 11,89,303/- confirmed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings with penalty of equal amount and penalty of Rs. 2 Lakh each on Shri D.N. Gupta and Shri T.K. Diwan, Directors and ordered refund of penalty of Rs. 76,44,080/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his refund has been made within period of 3 months from the date of filing of refund application dated 30.03.2009 and as such, this is not a case of delayed refund and the provisions of Section 11 BB are not attracted. In other words, the Asstt. Commissioner treated the date of filing of the refund as 30.03.2009 instead of 21.10.2008. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 6.1.2009 rejected the appeal against which this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Rajesh Rawal, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the dispute in this appeal is only about interest payable to the appellant for delay in refund of duty of Rs. 88,72....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that there is no delay in refund of the duty amount to the appellant and, hence, there is no interest liability under Section 11 BB. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant on 01.09.2006 had paid an amount of Rs. 1,92,95,372/- towards their duty liability and penalty under TR-6 challan. When in pursuance of the Tribunal's Final Order dated 2.5.2008, the matter was adjudicated de novo by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 17.10.2008, the appellant company's duty liability was determined as Rs. 11,89,303/- with equal amount of penalty under Rule 173 Q (1). Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6.11.2009 upholding the Asstt. Commissioners Order are totally wrong and not sustainable. Once the issue of refund and interest on the same for the period of delay was finally decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 17.03.2009 and that order was not challenged by the department, the issue of refund and interest on the same for the period of delay cannot be re-adjudicated and in this regard, the Asstt. Commissioners order as well as Commissioner (Appeals) treating the appellants reminder letter dated 30.03.2009 as refund application and on this basis, refusing the interest on the ground that the refund of Rs. 88,72,686/- was paid within three months, is totally wrong. We are of t....