- (1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5-7-2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the Tribunal has allowed the interest at the rate prescribed under the law after three months from the date of filing of refund application till the date of payment. Sri S.D. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that a search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 12-8-1998. By coercive method being adopted against the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 20 lacs had been deposited on 12-8-1998. By the order dated 6-12-2000, the adjudicating authority had raised a demand of Rs. 21 lacs and had adjusted the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21 lacs. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 15-5-2002 set aside the demand order of the adjudicating authority. The petitioner moved an application for the refund of the amount on 8-7-2002, which has been allowed and in pursuance thereof, the amount had been refunded on 11-3-2003, however, the interest under Section 11B of the Act had not been paid. The petitioner filed an application for the payment of interest, which has been rejected vide order dated 11-6-2003. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise which has been dismissed vide order dated 11-11-2003 against which the petitioner filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed with the following observation: "It is well settled that in case of delayed payment of pre-deposit amount by the Department, the assessee is entitled to the interest thereon in accordance with law under Section 11BB. The perusal of the said section leaves no doubt that the assessee is entitled to interest if the payment had not been paid to him within 3 months of the finalisation of the claim. In this context reference may also be made to the ratio of law laid down in Jindal Electric & Machinery Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, 2004 166 ELT 276. Therefore, the petitioners who had been denied the refund of pre-deposit amount without any justification are entitled to interest thereon @ as prescribed under the law, after 3 months from the date of the refund application moved by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the interest is set aside. The petitioners are allowed interest @ prescribed under the law after 3 months from the date of the filing of the refund application, till the date of payment."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed on 25-10-2007 along with other connected Civil Appeals with the following observations: "The point in dispute in the present appeals is as to whether the pre-deposit made as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was, on the assessee being ultimately successful, refundable to the assessee with interest. The said point is concluded by a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. I.T.C. Ltd, 2005 179 ELT 15decided on 2nd December, 2004. Moreover, subsequent to the said judgment, the Central Board of Excise & Customs has also issued a circular bearing No. 802/35/2004-CX, dated 8th December, 2004 allowing payment of interest on delayed refund of amount of pre-deposit. In view of what has been stated above, these appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
(3.) He submitted that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. I.T.C. Ltd, 2005 179 ELT 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed for payment of interest @ 12%. He further submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for the interest for the period 12-8-1998 till 6-12-2000 when the adjudication order has been passed inasmuch as the said amount has been illegally retained without any legal demand against the petitioner.;