2026 (2) TMI 900

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are that two Show Cause Notices dated 31.03.2008 and 07.04.2008 were issued to the appellant and both the Show Cause Notices were confirmed vide Orders-in-Original dated 10.03.2014. Aggrieved with this Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2014, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Bench vide order dated 07.07.2015 remanded the matter for re-adjudication. In de-novo proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority again confirmed the demand of both the Show Cause Notices vide Orders-in-Original dated 29.12.2016. The appellant again preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/10320-10323/2022 and A/10324-10327/2022 both dated 11.04.2022 set-aside both the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as sanctioned and the remaining claim of Rs. 19,51,393/- was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest on the refund amount, as claimed by the appellant under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also not sanctioned. Aggrieved with the said order passed by learned Adjudicating Authority, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), considering the CESTAT order, Circular No. 984/02/2014-CX dated 16.08.2014 and the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allowed the refund claim partly for Rs. 18,04,031/- (Rs. 15,04,031/- + Rs. 3,00,000/-) alongwith interest. As the refund of Rs. 9,09,153/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 18,04,031/- related to the pre-deposit at the rate of 7.5% of the duty amount and personal penalty on the partner. She prayed that the appeal may be dismissed or may be remanded back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to get refund of amount of deposit of Rs. 28,60,546/- or he could get a refund of only 7.5% of the amount involved in the appeal as held by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5.1 These are the admitted facts of this case that two Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant which were confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2014. The appellant prefe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 16.09.2014, at para 7, it has been stated that "Attested xerox copy of the document evidencing payment of such deposit, addressed to the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax or Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, would suffice for refund of amount deposited along with interest at the rate specified." The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the above mentioned para-7 of the Circular, it is clear that submission of original TR-6 challans is not mandatory for refund purpose. It has also been submitted in para 7.2 of the same Circular that record of pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 129E of the Customs Act....