TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crap was generated which was cleared by the appellant under domestic tariff area on payment of concessional duty @ 50% under notification No. 23/2003 CE. However, department vide 4 Show Cause Notices of the year 2005-2006 and 2008 denied the appellant to clear the scrap under DTA and accordingly it proposed a total demand of Rs. 1,04,55,307/- with interest and penalties. The said demand was confirmed by both the adjudicating authorities. The said demand was initially confirmed vide Order in Original dated 29.12.2005. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal against the said order for want of pre-deposit. This Tribunal vide Final Order No. 180/2007 EX dated 9.5. 2007, had remanded the matter to be decided on merits. The demand was still co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing respective appeals. Hence the provisions of time limit of three months for sanctioning the said amount is not applicable to the impugned amount. It is further mentioned that the amount of Rs.38,79,769/-. has also been wrongly adjusted to the amount of Rs.60 lakh which was the amount to be pre deposited. It is mentioned that the amount as a whole was to be transferred to the appellant along with the interest that too from the date of payment of the said amount. Learned Counsel has laid emphasis on the following decisions : 1. Goldstone Engineering Ltd vs Union of India [2005 (181) E.L.T. 11]; 2. Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1, Pune [2006 (196) E.L.T. 257]; 3. Surinder Singh Versus Union Of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question of Rs.60 lakh to be the amount of pre-deposit. The said amount has been admittedly paid as follows: Sl. No. RG-23 Pt-II Entry No. & date Amount debited(Rs.) i. 1152 dated 13.08.2008 20,00,000/- ii. 22 dated 08.05.2007 10,00,000/- iii. 105 dated 28.06.2007 10,00,000/- iv. 55 dated 11.07.2007 10,00,000/- v. 1472 dated 01.10.2008 10,00,000/- 6. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 11 thereof has held that appellant is entitled to interest from the date of expiry of three months till the date of refund of said amount from the date of communication of the order which in the present case is from 7.02.2017. It is observed that the concept of said three months has come under section 11BB ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall not exceed 36%. No concept of any time limit is being mentioned in the said provision. Hon'ble Apex Court also has settled this issue in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. reported as [2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC)] holding the assessee entiled for interest along with the refund of the amount which he was not liable to pay to the Department. 8. I also endorse the following findings of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Parle Agro Pvt Ltd. reported as (2021-TIOL-306- CESTAT-ALL) as under: "30. In the present case, the provisions of section 11B of the Excise Act would not be applicable. This is for the reason that the appellant was not claiming refund of duty. The applicant, as noticed above, had claimed refund of the revenue deposit. S....