TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant. 2. The facts of the case are discussed in brief. 2.1 An adjudication order vide OIO No. 19/MP/87, dated 14-8-87 was passed holding that appellant had effected clearances of finished goods in excess of exemption limit as provided under the relevant SSI Notification during 1984-85 and 1985-86 confirming demand of duty of excise of Rs. 4,49,136.70. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed. On appeal, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority vide Order No. 245/95-WRB, dated 2-2-95 [1995 (78) E.L.T. 88 (T)]. After de novo adjudication, Commissioner reduced the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh vide OIO No. 119/BRC/MP/95, dated 18-10-95 The matter was remanded back to Commissioner again in its entirety 24-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally decided by the Tribunal and refund claim was filed in terms of order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that interest is payable from a date after three months from the date of receipt of the final order of the Tribunal is legally correct and may be upheld. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides. First of all, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. case, cannot be applied to the present case in view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 17. (Relevant portion of Para 17 is reproduced below.) "17. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration on the elaborate submissions made by counsel appearing on either side. In our opinion, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a statute, such provision has to govern the field. In this case, there is no dispute that the amount was paid by the appellant before issue of show cause notice and that was paid as Central Excise duty only. In fact, it is found from the challan that head of account has been shown as "038-Union Excise Duties". It is also noticed that challan does not specifically say that it is towards pre-deposit but mentions SCN number and date whereas in case of penalty, it specifically sys that it has been paid under protest and it is paid as per the stay order of CESTAT. From the above discussion, it is quite clear that while the penalty has to be considered as pre-deposit made in terms of order of the Tribunal, the duty is to be considered as a payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, (not below 5%) and not exceeding 30% per annum as is for the time being fixed (by the Central Govt., by Notification in the Official Gazette), on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: Explanation. - Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal (National Tax Tribunal) or any court against an order of the (Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise), under sub-section (2) of Section 11B, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s judgment related to refund claim filed for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that it is subject to statutory provisions. I have also discussed the statutory provision above and my conclusion is based on the statutory provisions. However, before concluding one way or the other, the other judgments cited by learned advocate are required to be considered. 11.1 Kuil Fireworks Industries v. Collr. of CE, 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.): This case is not comparable on facts because in this case, the excise authority had detained the goods and by the time the appellant succeeded by filing writ petition, the exemption had been withdrawn. Since the appellant in that case could not clear the goods because of the....