Judgment:
1. The Tribunal vide its final order No. A/2213-00/NB(SM), dated 23-11-2000 had remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had observed in its order that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had allowed appeal filed by M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills but had not discussed their prayer with regard to the payment of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were claiming the interest from 3-5-95 and were making reference to some other earlier order dated 3-2-95 passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal observed that in the absence of any discussion by the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to this prayer, it was not possible for them to come to any findings whether the interest was permissible or not, as per the law. The Tribunal therefore, on this limited point whether the interest was admissible or not remanded back the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to pass speaking appealable order as per law on the prayer of the appellants after giving them an opportunity of hearing.
2. In pursuance of the above order of CEGAT, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai has passed an order dated 27-4-2001. In this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has made the following observations :- "Now examining the plea of the appellant for payment of interest from 26-8-95 i.e. on the expiry of three months of the coming into force of the Finance Act, 1995, it is seen that the claim for interest is as per Section 27A of the Customs Act. Section 27A of the Customs Act allows for payment of interest, if any duty ordered to be refunded under Sub-section (2) of Section 27 to an applicant, is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application till thir-date of refund of such duty. It is worth pointing out that the payment of interest provided for under this section is towards "any duty ordered to be refunded." In this instant case, the appellants themselves have admitted that the refund of Rs. 8,70,103.17 is in respect of deposit made in compliance of Section 129E of the Customs Act and has arisen consequent to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) setting aside the Order-in-Original with consequential relief to the appellants.
This fact has not been disputed by the appellants before any authority during any of the proceedings right from the beginning.
Therefore, payment of interest under Section 27A will not arise in respect of the refund of deposit made by the appellants." Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the plea of the party for payment of interest.
4. The present appeal is against the impugned order. I have heard Shri N.B. Jain, Company Secy of the appellant party and Ms. K.A. Mishra, SDR for the respondents. The learned representative of the appellants during the course of hearing submitted that the amount of refund of Rs. 8,70,103.17/- is still not sanctioned to them. Giving the history of the case, he submitted that the appellants claimed refund of the above amount but the Original Authority rejected their claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellants filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and their appeal was allowed. But, against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order they filed an appeal before CEGAT for payment of interest which had not been sanctioned vide order dated 23-11-2000 and the CEGAT remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). From these facts it appears that the appellants never staked any claim for the interest on the refund amount. They are now contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) though allowed their appeal for the refund of Rs. 8,70,103.17 but there was no finding as to the interest on this amount. Consequently, the matter is remanded for re-consideration to the lower appellate authority on the point of interest by the Tribunal.
Since admittedly the party never staked any claim for interest and had only been agitating for the refund amount, the question of the interest either being admitted or rejected would not arise. In my view the proper course for the appellants would be to stake a claim for the interest as per law. In this view of the matter one can find no discrepancy in the impugned order. It would, however, be open to the appellants to claim the amount of interest admissible to them before the original authority and the said authority thereafter shall dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as per law.