TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 897
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act i.e. 10/10/2017. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of both dutiable and exempted goods and is therefore required to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant to be used for dutiable goods and exempted goods as per Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They are eligible to avail credit on that quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable goods. In case no separate accounts are maintained, they shall pay an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the exempted goods cleared or he shall pay an amount equivalent to cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods. During the period from 15.04.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and this fact was also communicated to the Department vide letter dated 10/01/2013. Thereafter on 25/07/2017, the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 21720/2017 dated 25/07/2017 allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant. Thereafter on 10/10/2017, the appellant approached the Department to sanction the refund of Rs. 36,81,089/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Eighty Nine only) along with applicable interest from the date of recovery of the said amount. Thereafter, the Department vide Order-in-Original dated 31/05/2018 sanctioned refund of Rs. 36,81,089/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Eighty Nine only) but rejected the interest claim. Thereafter appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the following decisions: a. Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 788 (Tri.-Bang.) b. Omjai Bhavani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner - 2009 (243) E.L.T. 560 (Tribunal) c. Amidhara Texturising (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 257 (Tri.-Ahmd.) d. CCE & ST Vs. Balaji Wire Pvt. Ltd. - 2019-TIOL-2447-CESTAT-ALL e. CCE Vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. - 2014 (306) E.L.T. 26 (Mad.) 4.2. He further submitted that in the present case the payments were not made in the nature of pre-deposits and also the amounts are recovered in spite of the extension of Stay Order passed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act will not be applicable in the present case becaus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y application has granted complete stay of recovery in respect of the adjudged dues. Further I find that the Tribunal vide Order dated 27/12/2012 extended the stay for recovery of the adjudged dues but in the meantime the Department had issued him a letter dated 16/12/2012 to pay the adjudication levies and he has reversed the same at the insistence of the Department and after the visit of the Department to the unit of the appellant. Further I find that the appellant vide their letter dated 10/01/2013 has informed the Department that they have got the Stay Order and will produce the copy of the same. The appellant has also informed the Department that they have reversed the credit under protest. Further I find that the Tribunal vide its Fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the assessee. Further I find that in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Bangalore cited supra, the Tribunal has held in para 6 as under: "6. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that the duties were collected in the years 2004 and 2006 as seen from the Tabular column given and it is seen that the Order-in-Original was passed on 30-8-2005 and it has been mentioned that it has been also served after a delay of 244 days. It is very clear that atleast a major portion of the amount was with the Department right from the year 2004. When it is held that the amount is not due and it had also been collected much before the adjudication order, the amount can only be treated as deposit. Th....