2015 (12) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is barred by limitation. The said order was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (A) and on 04.01.2011. The commissioner (A) remanded matter back to the assistant Commissioner to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, refund claim was sanctioned to the appellant. The appellant sought interest after three months from the date of filing of refund claim a, till the refund claim was sanctioned. The said claim of interest was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.03.2012 holding that there is no provision to pay interest on delay refund filed under notification no.102/2007. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (A), the refund claim was rejected holding that the appellant has not claimed any interest in their claim of refund. Further the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from payment of special additional duty as payable under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is exempted under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore the refund of duty paid will have to be read in terms of Section 3(8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not otherwise. Therefore, the provision that is applicable for refund is Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. If the refund is not made as specified, then the consequences will follow with regard to interest. 11. Furthermore, the grant of exemption under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is an independent exercise of power by the Central Government and certain conditions have been imposed in the said notification for seeking refund, but the procedure for refund,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t on the basis of the letters given by the appellant to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner giving up their claims for interest for the period of delay. The decision of the Commissioner (A) is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd & Madras Rubber Factory Vs. Union of India wherein in para 40 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held that there is no estoppels in law against an assessee taxation matters. Besides this, we also find that the Apex court in case of Union of India Vs. Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. reported in 2007 (195) E.L.T. 141 (SC) has held that right conferred under the statute cannot be given up on the basis of concession made by any party to the lis. In our v....