SUPER ELECTRONICS Vs. CC KOLKATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in appeal dated 1.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.7.99 disallowing the interest on the refund amount.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under:

(3.) THE appellants in the year 1987 imported a consignment of polystyrene resin in the form of moulding power and cleared the goods through Calcutta Port Vide Bill of Entry No.I -1600 dated 9.9.87. For payment of C.V.duty the benefit of Notification No.133/86 -CE dated 1.3.87 as amended vide Notification No.89/87 -CE dated 1.3.87 was sought by them but the same was denied by the Customs authorities on the ground that the goods were not covered by that notification. Accordingly, the Bill of Entry was amended and C.V.duty was charged at the rate of 40% instead of 20% as as pleaded by the appellants. The appellants, however, made the payment and got the goods released. But, thereafter they filed claim for the refund of Rs.1,30, 188/ - with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs who in turn issued them show cause notice dated 8.4.94 as to why the refund amount be not credited to Consumers Welfare fund. After getting the reply from the appellants wherein they alleged that no part of the Customs duty had been collected by them form the customers as the goods had been used/consumed in the factory and not sold in the market, the Assistant Commissioner thereafter sanctioned the refund claim vide order dated 7.4.94 but credited the amount to Consumers Welfare Fund. This order of The Assistant Commissioner was later on set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who later on set aside by the Commissioner was later on set aside by the Commissioner was later on set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed de novo consideration. The Assistant Commissioner again, however, vide order dated 16.5.95 allowed the refund with a direction that the refund amount be credited to the Consumers Welfare Fund. That order of the Assistant Commissioner was then confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by rejecting the appeal of the appellants. The Tribunal, however set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 9.2.98 and directed the payment of the refund amount to the appellants.