2012 (10) TMI 641 - HC - Central Excise

Refund - valuation of the goods was done on provisional assessment basis - claims were rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - Assessments were provisional and hence refund, which arises as a result of finalization, cannot be considered as time barred and clause of unjust enrichment will not be attracted; directed the authorities to fund the excess duty paid by the assessee Interest on delayed payment of refund Held that - There is no principle enunciated that the liability to payment of interest must be computed from not the time an application is made under Section 11B(1) (referred to in Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944) but from the time an application is made subsequent to final adjudication by the Tribunal and only an application for refund made subsequent to the final adjudication by the Tribunal which must constitute the starting point for calculation of the three months period beyond which interest is liable to be paid - appeal is accordingly rejected

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue under Section 30(G) of Central Excise Act against Tribunal's Final Order.
2. Validity of refund claims filed by respondent after finalization of provisional assessment.
3. Grant of interest on refund amount by Commissioner (Appeals) and challenge by Revenue before CESTAT.
4. Interpretation of interest payment timeline based on Supreme Court judgment in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries case.
5. Determination of starting point for interest calculation on refund amount.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal by the Revenue under Section 30(G) of the Central Excise Act against the Final Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Tribunal had rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad, related to the valuation of goods manufactured by the respondent on a job work basis for another company.

2. The respondent had filed refund claims after the finalization of provisional assessment, which were initially rejected due to the unjust enrichment issue. However, the Tribunal later ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that as the assessments were provisional, the refund claims were not time-barred and unjust enrichment did not apply. The Tribunal directed the authorities to refund the excess duty paid by the respondent.

3. Subsequently, the refund claim was sanctioned, but no interest was granted on the refund amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered the payment of interest, leading the Revenue to appeal before the CESTAT challenging the interest liability.

4. The CESTAT, relying on a decision of its Larger Bench in Jayanta Glass Ltd. case, held that interest was payable by the Revenue after three months from the date of filing the refund claim, as the claims were filed within six months of finalization of provisional assessment. The Revenue cited the Supreme Court judgment in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries case regarding interest calculation timeline.

5. The High Court analyzed the Supreme Court judgment and concluded that the starting point for interest calculation on the refund amount should be the application made subsequent to the final adjudication by the Tribunal. The Court rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that there was no error of law in the decision of the CESTAT and no substantial error warranting consideration under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was rejected at the admission stage after hearing the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise.

← Previous Next →