TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 1266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial questions of law: "[1] Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT's order whereby only one of the components of the Assessable Value namely FOB was decided, but remaining components of Assessable Value namely Freight and Insurance were not decided and the case was remanded for re-determination of value and duty, can be termed as final order? [2] Whether interest liability arises from the date of the said order of the Hon'ble CESTAT whereby the case was remanded for re-determination of value and duty or from the date of order finalizing assessment whereby value and duty have been finally assessed by considering the directions of the Hon'ble CESTAT? [3] Whether, in the normal course, pre-deposit should be refund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the consignment at the rate of US $ 95 PMT (FOB) plus freight and insurance and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of value and duty in terms of its order. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12th November 2006. 3. The respondent vide letter dated 1st December, 2006 requested for refund of Rs. 1.25 crores deposited/recovered from it along with interest. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund, but rejected the request for the interest accrued thereon. The respondent carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and succeeded. The revenue challenged the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority in terms of the order of Tribunal and not from the date of the order of Tribunal. 5. From the facts emerging on record, the entitlement of the respondent to refund of the amount of Rs. 1.25 crore is not in dispute and accordingly the Deputy Commissioner has vide the order-in-original dated 22.12.2007 himself sanctioned the refund. However, the claim for interest on delayed refund had been turned down on the ground that the claim did not fall within the purview of section 27 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the respondent in Union of India v. Sandvik Asia Ltd., 2006 (196) ELT 257, Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (114) ELT 371 and M/s TATA SSL Ltd., 2007 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l order was passed by finalizing the assessment. In the absence of a stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Board's instruction finalization of assessment and refund was warranted and therefore, interest liability arises from the date of the order of the Tribunal and not the date of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is to be upheld and accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order." 7. Thus, it is apparent that CBEC Circulars dated 2.1.2002 and 8.12.2004 provide for payment of interest on predeposits. Hence, without reference to section 27 or 27A of the Act, interest is payable on pre-deposit in terms....