COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Vs. PARIS WAVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. 113/2005 (H -III) C.E. dated 29 -4 -2005, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals -III), Hyderabad.

(2.) THE Respondent was claiming refund of Cenvat credit which was not utilized because they exported the ready made garments and they were not in a position to utilize the Cenvat credit. Therefore in terms of provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 11/2002 -C.E. (N.T.) dated 31 -3 -2002, the Respondent filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 16,23,903/ -. The sanction order was passed on 12 -3 -2003. Initially the Basic Excise Duty (BED) was sanctioned and AED amounting to Rs. 5,41,301/ - had been rejected. Later based on Boards order and also in view of the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore on 13 -1 -2004, the AED portion was granted by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 23 -1 -2001. The issue involves the granting of interest. The Original Authority in his order sanctioned only the refund claim due to the party. In the order dated 24 -8 -2004, the Original Authority sanctioned an amount of Rs. 16,23,903/ - to the Respondent. But there is no discussion about the refund due to the Respondent. Therefore the Respondent approached the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the Respondent and ordered payment of interest in terms of the legal position. While passing the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of the Revisional authority, Government of India Order No. 75/2000 dated 7 -5 -2000 and he has also relied on other decisions of the Tribunal and ordered that interest is payable from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds : -

(3.) SHRI K. Sambi Reddy, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Venkatesh Rao, learned Advocate appeared for the Respondent.