TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty on clearances and to furnish bank guarantee for the remaining suit. In terms of interim order the respondent during the period August, 1990 to July, 1990 had cleared the goods by paying 50% of the disputed duty and furnished bank guarantee against remaining 50% of total amounting to Rs. 35,44,615/-. By the order dated 9.7.1991 Hon'ble High court dismissed the petition with a direction to pay balance amount of 50% of disputed duty along with interest @ 17.5%. The respondent filed Misc. Civil Appeal, meanwhile the respondent approached the court of Hon'ble Civil judge for an order to restrain the department from encashing the bank guarantee. Ld. Civil judge restrained the department from encashing the bank guarantee till excise duty was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29.06.2005. Aggrieved by order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the respondent filed a C.A. No. 2819 of 2007 with Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decided this appeal by order dated 08.10.2015 and on basis of which the appellant filed the refund claim for Rs. 48,05,753/-. A show cause notice was issued (to the appellant) on 23.02.2016 on the grounds that there were no directions in the order dtd 08.10.2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for refund of any amount; that the directions were 'not to recover any further Interest. Accordingly, the Revenue vide the original order rejected the refund claim filed by the respondent. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the respondent filed appeal before the Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore it cannot be said that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly decided the merit of the refund matter. He further submits that as against the interpretation made by the adjudicating authority the Ld. Commissioner also given detailed interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment dated 8-10-2015 and came to the conclusion that as per Hon'ble Supreme Court order the entire interest is not payable, accordingly not only that part of interest which was already recovered by way of encashment of bank guarantee but also balance interest payable therefore the order of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is just and legal which needs to be maintained. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice was issued to the appellant which was pending at that time 3. The writ petition filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. In the meantime, the respondents recovered the entire amount by encashing the Bank Guarantee on 13-10-2003. In view thereof, it is not necessary to go into the issue and we are of the opinion that having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and also that the appellant has some arguable case on merits, interest of justice would be subserved, if no interest is demanded. We, thus, dispose of this appeal with the direction to the respondents not to recover any further amount towards interest from the appellant." 7. From the reading of the above order, I observe that Ho....