TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,00,000/- on various dates i.e. 29.09.2008, 08.10.2008 and 15.10.2008. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to demand duty. The matter travelled up to this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide final order No. A/10514-10571/2015 dated 12.05.2015 held that the proceedings against the appellants are not sustainable and set-aside the proposal made in the show cause notice. Based on the order of this Tribunal, the refund claim was sanctioned to the appellants for the amount already paid by the appellant but no interest was given to the appellant for the amount paid by the appellant as pre-deposit during the course of investigation. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court has observed as under:- "4. Hence, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 33592 of 2007 before this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorified mandamus, to quash the order dated 30-4-2007 passed by the second respondent, insofar as it seeks to deny the refund of Rs. 13,20,578/- deposited by the first respondent pursuant to the audit conducted by the Officer of the appellants and to direct the Officers of the appellants to order refund of Rs. 13,20,578/- together with interest @ 8% from 2-12-1997. Learned single Judge, by order dated 17-8-2010, allowed the writ petition, directing the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 13,20, 578/- relating to the final order No. 471 of 2007 dated 30-4-2007 to the first respondent with in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of ONGC Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2007 (215) ELT 166 (S.C.)] has held as under: 4. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would submit that keeping in view the fact that the appellant had to deposit a huge amount during pendency of the Civil Appeals, interest of justice would be met if this Court directs the respondent to pay interest to the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount. It was submitted that interest should be directed to be paid by way of restitution, as has been held by this Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Others [(2003) 8 SCC 648]. 5. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for Maruti Zen Automatic model and Esteem Automatic Model with Mikuni Corporation, Japan and Mukuni Shoko Corporation, Japan in the year 1996. As per the said agreement, the first respondent paid a lumpsum of Rs. 35,000,000 and 17,500,000 of Japanese Yen as Technical Assistance fee for transfer of technology for manufacture of carburetors for Maruti Zen and Esteem Model car with automatic transmission to Mikuni Corporation, Japan through Mikuni Shoko Corporation, Japan in two instalments. The said amount was earlier collected from Maruti Udyog Ltd. and later on passed to the said Mukuni Corporation, Japan through Mikuni Shoko Corporation, Japan. 3. A question arose as to whether the first respondent as recipient of the technology ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 6. We are in full agreement with the finding rendered by the learned single Judge that the limitation contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable to the case of the first respondent since the amount in question was not paid towards excise duty but only by way of deposit during investigation. Moreover, as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, this Court can order payment of interest at a very reasonable rate and accordingly, learned single Judge directed the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 13,20,578/- relating to the final order No. 471 of 2007, dated 30-4-2007 to the first respondent with in....