2000 (7) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner (Appeals) in favour of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is entitled to get the refund of the amount deposited by way of pre-deposit. 3.So far as Special Civil Application No. 6020 of 2000 is concerned, the order is made by the Commissioner on 11th May, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred claim for refund on or about 10th July, 1999. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, no doubt, appeal has been preferred by the Revenue. However, no stay application has been submitted and thus, the order passed by the Commissioner is not stayed by the Tribunal and, therefore, under the order passed by the Commissioner, the Revenue is duty-bound to make the payment, as contemplated under the Act, viz., Central Excise Act, 1944.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....veral Circulars. Circular dated 30-5-1995 reads as under :- "…..Your attention is invited to the Finance Act, 1995 wherein a new Section 11BB under the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 has been inserted regarding interest on delayed refunds. With the enactment of the Finance Act, the Department has become liable to pay interest at the prescribed rate in case of various types of refund which are not processed within three months from the date of the receipt of refund applications under Section 11BB of CE & SA, 1944, till the date of refund of such duty. In this regard, you may also refer to Notification No. 22/95-C.E., dated 29-5-1995 which fixed such interest @ 15%….." Another Circular dated 2-6-1998 reads as under :- "…..I am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the ground that an appeal has been filed against the order giving the relief, unless stay order has been obtained. This Circular has been published on 2-6-1998. Despite this, the petitioner is required to rush to this Court as the Department has become deaf and not replying to the petitioner. Mr. M.R. Shah, appearing for the Revenue, in one matter, viz., Special Civil Application No. 6020 of 2000, submitted that in this case, application has been granted on condition that the Bank Guarantee of 25% of the amount should be furnished by the petitioner and they should also furnish the bond of the full amount. Under what provision this demand was made is not explained to us. Thus, one way or the other, the officers of the Revenue are withholdi....