TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oposing to demand duty of Rs. 2,92,57,767/- alleging that Rs. 1.60 per liter towards transportation charges & Depot charges has to be added into the transaction value. 11.01.1999 [P/63] Order-in-Original by ACCE passed without affording Personal Hearing 19.03.1999 [P/66] In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) directed IOCL to pay entire duty 30.03.1999 [P/67] IOCL paid entire duty of Rs. 2,92,57,767/- vide TR-6 Challan No.162 dated 30.03.1999 06.05.1999 [P/68] Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order dated 11.01.1999 and remanded the matterback to lower authority for fresh adjudication, after affording personal hearing. 19.11.1999 [P/ 70] DCCE, vide Order-in-original dated 19.11.1999,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r delay in sanction and payment of their refund claim of Rs. 2,92,57,767/- 27.2.2006 ACCE, vide letter F.No.V(CH.27)18-12/2005/597, stated that since the refund of Rs. 2,92,57,767/- was rejected by Order-in-original No.RGB/Refund/07-R/CH-I/2005-06 dated 7.12.2005, the interest cannot be given. 4.3.2006 IOCL, vide their letter No.TRLC/AC/EXCISE, replied that said refund claim of interest is in no way connected to Order-in-Original dated 7.12.2005 and also relied upon Supreme Court judgments in support of their entitlement to interest on delayed refund. 23.3.2006 Refund of Rs. 2,92,57,767/- was sanctioned and paid by Dept. 12.4.2006 IOCL, vide letter No.TRLC/AC/EXCISE, once again requested for interest on delayed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in case of Andrew Telcom(I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex. Goa[2014(34)S.T.R. 562(Bom)]. He particularly read out para 7 of the said order which reads as under: 7. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Revenue, submits that the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The application for refund has been made under the Central Excise Act, 1944. That is to claim refund of the Service Tax which has been paid by the Appellant/Assessee. In considering that application, the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal could not have ignored much less overridden the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Such application has to be considered in the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) vide order dated 6-5-1999 set aside the Order-in-Original dated 11-11999. As a consequence amount of duty paid as pre-deposit become refundable in terms of Circular F. No.275/37/2000-CX dated 2-1-2002, CBEC has formalize the policy regarding the granting of refund. Para 2 & 3 of the said circular reads as under: 2. It would be pertinent to mention that the Revenue had recently filed a Special Leave Petition against Mumbai High Court's order in the matter of NELCO LTD, challenging the grant of interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit as to whether : (i) the High Court is right in granting interest to the depositor since the law contained in Section 35F of the Act does in no way provide for any type of compensation in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding with the authorities will also be treated as simple letters asking for return of the deposits, and will be processed as such. Similarly, bank guarantees executed in lieu of cash deposits shall also be returned. While that circular was issued subsequent to the disputed period the same is based on the interpretation of law made by High courts and Supreme Court. In these circumstances, same would be applicable retrospectively as it was merely a clarification. Thus in terms of aforesaid circular refund would have been due immediately after Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the demand in respect of which the said pre-deposit was sustainable i.e. on 6-5-1999. Appellant filed refund claim 4-9-2000 and are seeking interest from the period th....