9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 93 - HC - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim of Rebate of duty - The claim of the petitioner for rebate of duty was denied by the department and the matter was carried in revision before the C.G. who allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner/applicants are eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for sanctioning rebate. After remand, the department again rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise Division, Moradabad. The said appeal has been allowed and the order in the appeal has been set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for refund of amount. No action is being taken by the department, the present writ petition has been filed. Held that - Mere pendency of revision before the C.G. at the instance of the department, is of no consequence as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Limited, 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Therefore refund amounting to ₹ 1,37,833/- alongwith interest has been made out. The petitioner shall be entitled to get interest after expiry of period of three months from the date of application for refund at the rate of 6% per annum i.e. from 13.3.2008 till the date of actual payment of amount. The respondents are also liable to pay the cost of the present writ petition which we assess at ₹ 25000/-. The said amount shall also be paid within a period of one month.
Issues involved:
Claim for rebate of duty, denial of rebate claim by department, revision filed before Central Government, order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal, pending revision before Central Government, compliance with appellate authority's order, refund application, interest on delayed refunds, liability of Central Government for interest, directive for refund voucher issuance, cost assessment for the writ petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Claim for Rebate of Duty: The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing excisable items, claimed rebate of duty paid on exported goods as per the Rules. The Central Government allowed the revision filed by the petitioner, stating eligibility for rebate. However, the department rejected the claim, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who subsequently allowed the appeal on 30.10.2007. 2. Denial of Rebate Claim and Pending Revision: Despite the Commissioner's order, the department denied refund, citing a pending revision before the Central Government. The respondent contended that no refund could be granted until the revision was resolved. The petitioner argued that the pendency of the revision should not hinder the refund process. 3. Compliance with Appellate Authority's Order: The High Court emphasized the importance of following orders of higher appellate authorities unreservedly unless suspended by a competent court. The petitioner and respondent both acknowledged the absence of any interim or stay order from the Central Government regarding the appellate authority's decision. 4. Refund Application and Interest on Delayed Refunds: The petitioner filed a refund application on 13.12.2007, and as per Section 11-B of the Act, the refund became due from the date of the appellate authority's order. The Act also stipulated interest on delayed refunds, with the rate fixed at 6% per annum in 2007. 5. Directive for Refund Voucher Issuance and Cost Assessment: Considering the facts presented, the High Court directed respondent no. 3 to issue a refund voucher for the claimed amount along with interest at 6% per annum. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay the assessed cost of the writ petition within one month. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, affirming the petitioner's entitlement to the refund amount and interest, despite the pending revision before the Central Government. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to appellate authorities' decisions and ensuring timely refund processing as per legal provisions.
|
