2011 (4) TMI 963 - AT - Central Excise

Interest on refund - Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondents are entitled for interest on the refund amount with effect from 27-5-1997 till the date of refund i.e. 20-1-2006. Earlier the adjudicating authority had refused to grant any interest on the refund amount - Commissioner (Appeals) merely held that in terms of the finding of the Settlement Commission in its final order, the respondents would be entitled for refund but the details were required to be verified to ascertain the correct amount refundable and for that purpose, direction was issued to the adjudicating authority Held that - respondents did not react against the finding of the authority that his refund claim under the application dated 27-2-97 was premature till 29-11-06 as the quantum of duty liability of the respondents was not determined, Commissioner (Appeals) could not have directed payment of interest and to that extent, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and is set aside, appeal succeeds. The impugned order directing the payment of any interest is hereby quashed and set aside

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim interest entitlement; Timeliness of refund claim; Settlement Commission's role in determining duty liability.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned a refund claim dispute arising from the import of LDPE granules under the DEEC Scheme. The respondents filed a refund claim after fulfilling export obligations, but the claim was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority on grounds of premature submission.

2. The respondents' appeal was remanded for further consideration, leading to involvement of the Settlement Commission, which determined the duty liability. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed verification of refund details, and the respondents submitted the necessary information by a specified date.

3. The Department argued against interest payment on the refund, citing the timeliness of the refund claim submission and subsequent refund disbursement. Legal precedents were cited to support the Department's position.

4. In contrast, the respondents argued that interest was rightfully payable from a specific date due to non-refund within three months of the original claim. They highlighted legal cases supporting their stance and emphasized the importance of interest payment in cases of overpayment.

5. The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Commission's decision on duty liability and the subsequent submission of refund details by the respondents were crucial aspects. The respondents did not challenge the initial finding of premature refund claim until the duty liability was determined.

6. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim details were submitted as per the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and the refund was processed accordingly. Considering the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal found no basis for interest payment in this case.

7. Legal precedents cited by both parties were examined, with the Tribunal distinguishing the facts of each case to determine their relevance to the present dispute. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing interest payment and set aside the order accordingly.

8. In light of the facts and legal arguments presented, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Department, quashing the Commissioner (Appeals) order for interest payment on the refund claim. The appeal was deemed successful, and the impugned order was set aside.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal provisions involved in the case.