Gujarat Borosil Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant are entitled for the interest from the 3 months of the order of the tribunal till the refund of pre-deposit was granted.
Facts- The issue involved in the present case is that whether, refund of pre-deposit made while filing the appeal before the tribunal is due from 3 months of passing of remand order by the Tribunal or after 3 months of passing order in de novo adjudication and consequential liability of department to pay interest thereon.
Conclusion- We find that in various judgments it has been settled that as regard refund of pre-deposit, there is no requirement for filing a refund claim. The department must give the refund suo moto on the basis of Tribunal’s order therefore merely because the appellant have not filed the proper refund claim within 3 months of the Tribunal order, department cannot be absolved from the liability of interest on the refund of pre-deposit.
Held that appellant are entitled for the interest from the 3 months of the order of the tribunal till the refund was granted.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is that whether, refund of pre-deposit made while filing the appeal before the tribunal is due from 3 months of passing of remand order by the Tribunal or after 3 months of passing order in de novo adjudication and consequential liability of department to pay interest thereon.
2. Shri, Anand Nainawati, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the amount of pre-deposit is made for admission of the appeal before the tribunal. Once the appeal is disposed of the said pre-deposit made stand refundable to the assessee within 3 months from the date of the Tribunal’s orders irrespective of whether the Tribunal’s order is final on merit or remand to the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the department’s contention in the present case that the refund is arising only after passing of de novo adjudication is irrelevant and illegal without any support of law.
2.1 He submits that this issue is not under dispute in the light of board circular and the judgments as follows:
