TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of pre-deposit only when the Appellate Authority decides the Appeal finally in its favour and that no such right accrues to the Appellant if the Appeal is decided by way of a remand, back to the adjudicating authority ? (2) Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that the judgments cited before it was not relevant as in these cases, the appeal was decided finally even though in cases of Voltas Limited reported in 1999(112) ELT 34 (Del) and Nelco Limited reported in 2002(144) ELT 56 (Bom) the matter was remanded ? (2) Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1944'), to contend that the pre-deposit referred to in Section 35....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondents were wrong throughout. They proceeded to demand duty from the Petitioner in a clearly time barred case and because the Department took a wrong view of the matter, we see no reason why the Petitioner should be made to suffer loss of interest on the large amount of Rupees Twenty lakhs for a period of almost three years and more. 6. Mr. Jetley made an effort to persuade us that the consequence of the CEGAT's order was that the Petitioner would continue to be liable for the duty demanded initially and that the deposit was legitimately and rightfully withheld by the Respondents. We are unable to accept this contention. The CEGAT's order dated 24th January, 1997 remands the matter for re-adjudication by the adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly. In the said case also the Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority and since the deposit was not returned back, interest @ 15.00%p.a. was imposed. In the present case also the Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. (6) Learned counsel further submits that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (earlier referred to as GST-ExCus), thereafter, issued a Circular on 02/01/2002 directing all concerned to adopt uniform procedure to refund the pre-deposit made before the Appellate Authority. The Central Board then, issued updated Circular dated 08/12/2004, wherein following directions were given :- 4. Accordingly, the contents of the Circular No. 275/37/2000-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Adjudicating Authority, the respondent had refused to return the pre-deposit amounting to Rs.1 Crore which was due for return within 3 months from the date of Tribunal's order. The respondent, however, had returned the deposit on 01/09/2005. The appellant requested for the interest @12.00% p.a. from the date it was due till the amount of pre-deposit was actually paid, which according to the appellant comes to Rs. 14,89,315/-. (9) As such, learned counsel for the respondent made an attempt to justify withholding the amount of interest, however, considering the position of law and the Circulars issued by the Board, we are of the view that the appellant was entitled for the refund of pre-deposit within three months from the date of order o....