TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 1136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim has already seen two rounds of litigation at Commissioner (Appeal)'s level and finally is before me. Initially rebate claim was rejected on the ground that relevant documents were not submitted and when it was remanded back, rebate claim was rejected on the ground that no declaration was filed and some other procedural lapses. Again when the appellants went to Commissioner (Appeals), he has passed order holding that Assistant Commissioner has gone beyond show cause, remanding the case back and finally Assistant Commissioner sanctioned refund claim but rejected the claim for interest on the ground that order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be treated as an order under Section 11B(2) of CEA, 1944 and therefore, he is not bound....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the law is very clear that the interest is payable with reference to the date of filing of the original refund claim. 3. He also relies on the judgment of Larger Bench in case of Rama Vision Ltd. v. CCE Meerut, as reported in 2004 (170) ELT 13 (Tri-LB). I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a very detailed order which considers several decisions cited by the adjudicating authority as well as respondent and comes to a conclusion that interest is payable. I find myself in full agreement with the logic and the reasoning adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) in coming to the conclusion that respondent are eligible for interest. Therefore, I reproduce the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) Shri Deepak Kumar and in view of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granted from the date of favourable order and not from the date of pre-deposit. The ratio of this judgment applies only for the cases of Birla Corporation Ltd.-2002 (144) ELT 674 (Tri-Del.) the demand of interest was held to be unsustainable as this interest related to demand of duty, the order on which has ceased to exist on account of the reversal or remand of the matter for fresh decision. This is the main decision and in this background the Tribunal has observed that demand for interest arises only when dispute has been finally settled. Hence ratio of this case is also not applicable to the present case. As regard adjudicating authority reliance on Tribunal's order in case of Indian Thermoplastic Pvt. Ltd.-2004 (164) ELT 156 (T), i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assistant Commissioner on the rebate applications filed by them which was initially remanded back by the Commissioner (A) firstly for the reason that OIOs were not signed by the adjudicating authority and secondly on the ground that adjudicating authority has traveled beyond the scope of SCN and thereafter the cases have been adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner and rebates were granted by him to the appellants. As such, the rebate were not granted within three months of the applications of refund which were initially wrongfully rejected or withheld. In this background, the adjudicating authority has raised the question if the appellants are entitled for interest on rebate from the date of filing the original application on 30.4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue authorities not giving interest for the period as stipulated in Section 11BB. It is accordingly, directed that interest on delayed refund has been decided stating that the interest is to be paid after expiry of three months from the date of filing application for refund. Some of which have been quoted by the appellants in Para 3 above. The Hon'ble Court of Rajasthan vide its order dt. 10.2.04 in case of J.K. Cement Work-2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj), held that from the wording of Section 11BB regulating the grant of interest on delayed refund it is very clear unless is not to be tagged with adjudication order but is to be paid, if ultimately found payable, after expiry of three months from the date of making the refund application....