2018 (6) TMI 1300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DER SINGH The appellant have filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Panchkula. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the proceedings were launched against the appellant, who are 100% EOU, on the issue whether the broken rice and rice bran were liable to excise duty when cleared to DTA. The show cause notices were adjudicated and the demand was confir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roached the adjudicating authority for refund of pre-deposit made under Section 35FF along with interest by their application dated 2.8.2017. Refund of Rs. 32,62,000/- was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority on 9.11.2017. However, the adjudicating authority did not give any finding on the refund of interest made by the appellant and did not pass any order on the interest portion. Against the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar provision of refund of interest under Section 35FF for pre deposit made after 6.8.2014 when the mandatory deposit was started. 4. Ld.AR reiterated the findings in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. I find that pre-deposit of Rs. 32,62,000/- was made on 9.2.2016. The appellant have submitted that this was made pursuant to the order of Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication. This aspect has been completely ignored by the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority for the purpose of refund of interest. The finding given by the first appellate authority on pre-deposit pertaining to period before the Finance Act 2014 therefore appears to be clearly erroneous. 7. The matter is therefore remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider t....