TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atabdi Chatterjee (Advocate) and Sh. P. K. Patwari (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Sh. R. Raghavan submitted that appellant made pre-deposits of Rs. 2 Crore + Rs. 3 Crore on 25/1/2000 as per the directions contained in stay order No. S/99-101/99-C dated 10/11/99 passed by this bench. That the issue was finally decided in favour of the appellant as per final order NO. 137-39/02-C dt 3/6/2002 on 16/8/03 & on 24/9/03 refund of pre-deposit made by the appellant, as per stay order dt 10/11/99, was paid to the appellant but no interest as per CBEC circular 802/35/2004-cx dt 8/12/2004 was paid to the appellant. That appellant vide letters dt 8/10/2003, 8/3/2004, 22/3/05, 2/7/05, 24/11/05, 26/11/05 & 29/03/2006 represented to pay in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI [2015 (324) ELT 299 (Guj)] 3. Sh. S. Mukhopadhyay Suptd (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that payment of interest on Rs. 2crore + Rs. 3crore deposits was rejected by order No. 58/Ref/ACD/2002/6022 dt 13/11/2003, as recorded in order No. (18) 1/ REF/ACD/98-P-II/1589 dt 26/5/06 and no appeal against such rejection of interest claim has been filed by the appellant. That due to non filing of appeal against order dt 13/11/2003 appellant now can not claim interest on pre-deposits made. Learned AR thus strongly defended OIA dated 30/7/07 passed by the first appellate authority. 4. As a counter to the submissions made by AR Learned Advocate of the appellant relied upon the Apex Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pre-deposits are reiterated. It is again reiterated that ion terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court s order such pre-deposit must be returned within 3 months fom the date of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Court of other Final Authority unless there is a stay on the order of the Final Authority/ CESTAT/ Court, by a superior Court. 5. Delay beyond this period of three months in such cases will be viewed adversely and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated against the concerned defaulting officers. All concerned are requested to note that default will entail an interest liability, if such liability accrues by reason of ay orders of the CESTAT/ Court, such orders will have to be complied with and it may be recoverable f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the grounds of appeal filed before the first appellate authority. The same was entertained by the first appellate authority & on merits it was held by him that appellant is not entitled to interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit as interest under Sec 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 is not admissible to the pre-deposit made under Sec 35 F of the Central Excise Act 1944. If Revenue was aggrieved by the findings of the first appellate authority on merits then an appeal was required to be filed by the Revenue or a memorandum of cross objections in the appeal filed by the appellant should have been filed. A new case can not be made out by the department when no appeal against OIA dt 13/11/2003 was filed and this ground can not be entert....