2007 (10) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....clubbing their clearances with that of two other concerns and also proposed for recovery of duty as they had failed to pay duty on the work done by the appellants on job work basis, The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner on 7-2-2000 upholding the charges against the appellants in the SCN and confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 1,11,54,234/- together with equal amount of penalty. In the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of amount paid in compliance with the stay order. On 29-8-2002 [2003 (151) E.L.T. A 303 (S.C.) the appeal filed by the revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Tribunal's order dt. 9-11-2001 was dismissed. Pursuant to the remand order dt. 24-3-03, the Commissioner confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 9,27,317/- by denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 15/94-C.E. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... he held that no interest was payable since duty liability was determined only on 24-3-03 and refund was sanctioned on 11-4-03. 3. Pursuant to the remand order dt. 18-11-03 of the Tribunal, the Commissioner redetermined the duty liability at Rs. 6,520/- by his order dt. 27-4-04 observing that the appellants may approach the appropriate authority for refund of the excess pre-deposit. The appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be sanctioned prior to that date since the amount to be refunded was determined only on-24-3-03 and the amount was refunded within three months, and therefore no interest becomes by the Revenue. The refund of pre-deposit has to be made within a period of three months from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal in the absence of any stay order of a superior Court, as clarified by the Board's ....