2012 (8) TMI 724 - HC - Central Excise

Interest on Refund - revision application by Revenue contested that rebate claim has been paid within three months from the date of sanctioning the claim no interest is payable - Held that - As in the case of Jindal Drugs Limited (2012 (2) TMI 78 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) the rebate claim was admittedly paid within three months of sanctioning the claim and the issue is covered by this decision, no fault can be found with the decision of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in rejecting the revision application filed by the Revenue against allowance of interest claim.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing revision application for rebate claims and interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed by the Revenue to challenge the order dismissing the revision application and upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (A). The rebate claims were filed by the assessee between September 2006 and November 2006, and showcause notices were issued in February 2007. The rebate claims were later sanctioned in June 2008 due to a retrospective amendment of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 by the Finance Act 2008.

2. Subsequently, the assessee applied for interest on the sanctioned rebate claim under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944. The claim for interest was initially rejected but was later allowed by the Commissioner (A) in March 2010. The Revenue challenged this decision through a revision application.

3. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision based on the judgments of the Apex Court and a previous judgment of the High Court. The Revenue contended that the case of the assessee was different from the previous judgment as the rebate claim was paid within three months of sanctioning and the assessee had requested to keep the matter in abeyance.

4. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's contention as the showcause notices were issued to the assessee, and it was not established that the rebate claim would have been allowed without the letters from the assessee. The Court noted that even in the previous case cited by the Revenue, the rebate claim was paid within three months of sanctioning. Therefore, the decision of the Joint Secretary was upheld based on the previous judgment.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no fault with the decision of the Joint Secretary to reject the revision application filed by the Revenue. No costs were awarded in this matter.