ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The short point involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the interest amount for the refund of predeposit made by them for the hearing of their appeal. The said interest claimed by the appellants has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that such deposits are for the purposes of availing right of appeal, and when the amount is liable to be refunded on success of the appeal, no interest is payable under the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Shri P.k. Das, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the issue is no more res integra and has been set at rest by the various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court as also of the various High Courts and of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. They are as follows:-
(i) 1997 (2) RLT-327 (SC) in the case of Kuil Fireworks Industries vs. Collector of Central Excise & Anr.;
(ii) 2003 (153) ELT-290 (CAL.) in the case of Eastern Coils Private Ltd. vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Kol -I;
(iii) 2001 (133) ELT-278 (Mad.) in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai vs. Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd.;
(iv) 2000 (115) ELT-302 (Mad.) in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India;
(v) 2002 (144) ELT-15 (P&H) in the case of Kandhari Beverages Ltd. vs. Union of India;
(vi) 2003 (154) ELT-522 (Tri.-LB) in the case of Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Noida;
(vii) 2003 (155)ELT-191 (Tri.-LB) in the case of Mulji Narshi Shah vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.
(viii) 2001 (137) ELT-230 (Tri.-Kolkata) in the case of Metrosyl vs. C.C.Ex., Patna;
(ix) 2003 (156) ELT-407 (Tri.-Mumbai) in the case of HBL Nife Power System Ltd. vs. C.C., Mumbai;
(x) 2003 (56) RLT-924 (CESTAT-Mum.) in the case of CC (Import), Mumbai vs. Universal Cables Limited;
(xi) 2003 (58) RLT-385 (CEGAT-Del.) in the case of Somaiya Organics (I) Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad;
(xii) 2003 (58) RLT-360 (CESTAT-L.B.) in the case of Ramlubhaya vs. C.C., New Delhi.
3. The ration of all the above decisions has been that when the predeposit is required to be refunded, the same would attract the interest at the permissible rates. As such, following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the original adjudication authority with the direction to calculate the interest on the refund of predeposit of duty at the permissible rates in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the above-referred decisions. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.