2016 (9) TMI 787

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi vide judgment dated 14.01.2000, holding that product 'Gulabari' is not classified under Heading 33.03 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1985'). 3. It is not disputed that in the meantime when such dispute was pending, Excise Authorities insisted upon petitioner to deposit excise duty by treating aforesaid product under classifiable Heading 33.03 and as a result whereof a total sum of Rs. 1,14,78,517/- was deposited by petitioner. 4. Once matter was decided by Tribunal and judgment attained finality, petitioner became entitled for refund. Hence application for refund was submitted by petitioner in pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r on 08.03.2000 but for one or other reason, incorrect and illegal orders were passed by Revenue authority and could not defeat in even up to this Court, yet amount was refunded only in 20.01.2006 and that too without any interest. 7. Facts detailed above evidently show that respondent authorities were adamant in retaining huge money legally refundable to petitioner for one or the other reason which could not withstand when tested in Court i.e. Tribunal and this Court. Now respondents are trying to deprive petitioner, benefit of interest though respondents themselves were guilty by not refunding amount in due time and also withheld the same without any authority of law. In other words, here is a case, where respondents deprive petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edar Paper Pvt. Ltd. vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commn. and others, 2009 (3) SCC 754 and National Highways Authority of India and Anr. vs. Bumihiway DDB Ltd. (JV) and others, 2006 (10) SCC 763 and India Household and Healthcase Ltd. Vs LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., 2007 (5) SCC 510. 11. There is another aspect of matter, application for refund was filed by petitioner on 08.03.2000. Under Section 11 BB it is provided that if the authority is satisfied that an amount is to be refunded to Assessee but the same has not been refunded within three months from the date of filing of application, Assessee would be entitled for interest. Order passed by Revenue authority under Section 11B(2) for refund is not relevant for the purpose of at....