2008 (7) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner on 23-9-1997 confirming demand of duty and imposing penalties. The said order was set aside by Tribunal on 11-11-1998 and the matter was remanded to Commissioner for de novo adjudication. Commissioner in remand proceedings, confirmed duty of Rs. 94,45,276/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1.25 crores vide his order dated 4-3-1999. The said order of the Commissioner was challenged by the appellant before Tribunal. The application under Section 35F was also filed before Tribunal. It is seen that vide Stay order dated 7-10-1999, pre-deposit of duty and penalties was dispensed with by taking into account the appellant's financial condition, as the same were declared a sick unit by BIFR. However, no stay against the recovery of the said....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the penalty amount. 4. Ld. Advocate Shri B.L. Narsimhan appearing before us submitted that the Department was not justified in adjusting the sanctioned rebate claims against the dues confirmed against the appellant inasmuch as the duty and penalty confirmation was not final and they had filed an appeal before Tribunal. As such they are entitled to the interest from the date of adjustment of the dues against the sanctioned rebate claims inasmuch as the said rebate claims have not actually been refunded to them within a period of 3 months from the date of their claim. For the above preposition, they have relied upon the following decisions:- (1) Himson Textiles Engg. Ind. P. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat [2005 (190) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.-Mum.)] (2) Voltas....