CCE Vs. JASCH INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order -in -Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of interest to the respondents on the alleged delayed payment.

(2.) I have heard both the sides. The perusal of the record shows that the refund claim of the respondents arose out of the initial denial of modvat credit of certain amount to them when the modvat credit was denied to them by the adjudicating authority. They reversed the same in their record i.e. RG23C Part II. However, they challenged that order of the Assistant Commissioner; and that order was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department challenged that order before the Tribunal which vide order dated 29.2.200 upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) Thereafter the respondents instead of taking recredit in their record on the strength of the above said order of the Tribunal, suo -moto, they moved an application for the refund of the amount. In that application they did not ask for the interest. They rather vide their letter dated 15.6.2001 gave up their right to claim the interest. Moreover, the recredit could be taken by the respondents of their own suo moto, without lodging any claim for refund, as no money was to be refunded to them through cash/cheque/draft. No doubt modvat credit is also to be treated as excise duty, but in a case of credit refund, no application under any rule is required to be made. It is only the reversal of the entry which has to be made by the assessee himself after the passing of any order in his favour. Therefore, under all these circumstances, whether still any interest would be awarded to the respondents or not, has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). That being so, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. The matter is sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after hearing the respondents. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed, by way of remand.