ANKIT TEXTILES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have filed written submissions which I have gone through. Dr. M.K. Rajak, ld. SDR appeared for the Revenue.

(2.) AS per facts on record, proceedings for confirmation of demand of duty were initiated against the appellants by way of issuance of a show cause notice. Appellants approached the Settlement Commissioner, who vide their admission order dt. 2 -9 -2005 directed them to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs. The said deposit was made by the appellant on various dates. Thereafter the matter was taken up by Settlement Commissioner for final disposal and vide their order dt. 12 -12 -2005, the Commissioner was directed to adjudicate the matter. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad vide his order -in -original dt. 10 -2 -2006 dropped the proceedings against the appellant. Hence the appellant became entitle to refund of the deposits made in terms of Settlement Commissioners order dt. 12 -12 -2005. They accordingly made application and the refund was sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner on 18 -5 -2006.

(3.) THE dispute in the present appellant is to the interest in respect of the deposits so made by the appellant. The lower authorities have observed that the provisions of Boards Circular No. 275/37/2000 -CX.8A dt. 2 -1 -2002 laying down that deposit is required to be considered other than duty amount and should be returned immediately on the claimant claiming the same vide a simple letter, will not apply in the present case inasmuch as in the matters before Settlement Commissioner the appellants are not disputing liability but are admitting the same. Therefore the sums deposited by them are not in the nature of pre -deposit but are in the nature of duty deposits and should be treated as duty deposits. However, it is seen that Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed that the refund was granted within 3 months from date of application and as such no case is made out. The appellants are also not disputing that the refund was given within 3 months period from the date of application. However, they are saying that the refund should have been given on the same day when the Settlement Commission remanded the matter to Commissioner for adjudication. Inasmuch as there was no duty liability raised against them, and the deposit made in terms of Settlement Commissioners order should have been immediately refunded. For the above proposition, they have relied upon Honble Bombay High Courts decision in the case of M/s. Nelco Ltd. v. UOI [2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.)], which stands confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected as reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. A -104 (S.C.).