ORDER
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appellants were allowed the impugned refund by the Tribunal order dated 24.11.2003. Shri Anand Nainawati, leanred C.A. appearing for the appellants, states that subsequent to passing of this order, the appellants have filed a refund claim in proper form and the amounts have been refunded to them within a period of three months from the date of such filing. However, the claim of the appellants for interest on the refund amount with reference to the original dates of refund claim has been rejected. Hence, this appeal.
2. The learned C.A. places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of J.K. Cement Works v. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs in support of his case. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, learned DR appearing for the department opposes the claim for interest stating that the refund amount has been paid within three months after passing of the Tribunal order. He also states that the decision in J.K. Cement (supra) is on a set of different facts and hence the same is not applicable to this case.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records including the cited decision, I find that in the case of J.K. Cement (cited supra), the issue related to payment of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, whereas in the present case, the refunded amounts were adjusted against the duty amount confirmed and payable by the appellants. Since such adjustment is permitted under the law, it is nothing but a payment to the appellants by way of adjustment.
4. Moreover, in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE&C , in every case, where a refund becomes due on account of an order passed by the Courts, Tribunals etc., fresh applications are required to be made to enable the refund sanctioning authority to ensure that the recipients of the refunded amount have not passed on the burden to anyone else. In the present case, the impugned amounts were earlier adjusted against confirmed demands and the refund of the same became due to the appellants only after passing of the cited Tribunal’s order dated 24.11.2003. Subsequent to this order, the appellants have rightly filed a fresh application for refund and since this has been considered and refund has been granted within three months from the date of application, no interest is payable since the statutory provisions allow interest only if such amounts are not paid within three months from the date of application. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned orders require no interference.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
Dictated and pronounced in open Court.