2011 (5) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess interest - Show Cause Notice were issued to the them for recovery of interest under Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also for imposing penalty under Rule 25(1) - Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the appellant could not take suo-moto credit of the excess interest which has become refundable and they should have filed the refund application under Rule 11B of Central Excise Act - The point of dispute is as to whether the appellant for refund of this amount should have filed a refund application under section 11B of Central Excise Act or they could take it suo-moto credit in the PLA - in this case, when the interest was for late payment of duty, there would not be any question of unjust enactment - In view Bock India P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara (2009 -TMI - 203462 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excess interest paid during the pendency of an appeal.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for refund of interest.
3. Whether the appellant could take suo-moto credit in the PLA without filing a refund application.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of excess interest paid by the appellant during the pendency of their appeal. The Tribunal's final order reduced the interest liability, making a portion of the interest paid refundable.

Issue 2: The main contention revolved around the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for the refund of interest. The appellant argued that since the excess amount was interest and not duty, no refund application under Section 11B was necessary.

Issue 3: The appellant asserted that they were entitled to take suo-moto credit in the PLA for the excess interest without filing a refund application, citing a judgment in a similar case. The appellant argued that the judgment regarding excess duty paid did not apply to the refund of interest.

The presiding judge, after considering the arguments from both sides, analyzed the situation. The judge noted that prior to a specific date, Section 11B only applied to the refund of duty, not interest. Therefore, the judgment concerning excess duty refund did not directly apply to the refund of interest in this case. The judge also highlighted that as the interest was related to late payment of duty, there was no unjust enrichment involved.

Ultimately, the judge found that a different judgment was more applicable to the case at hand, supporting the appellant's position. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the self-credit of excess interest and imposing penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.