2021 (5) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Rai, Mr. Amandeep Kumar, ARs ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for not granting interest on delayed refund. 2. The facts of the case are that on 16.03.1998, the annual production capacity under Compound Levy Scheme was fixed under Section 3A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the competent authority. The said order was set asi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide its order dt. 04.07.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue with the direction that the predeposit made by the appellant shall not be refunded to the appellant till the decision of the adjudicating authority in the matter. Thereafter, the Revenue again filed a review petition and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, on 17.10.2008 a demand of Rs. 26,46,491/- was confirmed against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have not been disputed by either of the sides. Now question arises (i) whether the appellant is entitled for interest on delayed refund or not? and (ii) if yes, then from which date? 4. It is a fact on record that initially after the decision of this Tribunal, the appellant filed the refund claim on 14.09.2005. The said application was kept pending by the Revenue and the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o claim interest, then the appellant is entitled to claim interest after three months from 14.09.2005 till 31.10.2008, as on the said date, the refund claim has been sanctioned. I find that it is apparent on record that the said refund was sanctioned but was adjusted against the demand which was not sustained. In that circumstance, I hold that the contention of the ld. AR is not acceptable. Theref....