9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1157 - AT - Central ExciseInterest on delayed Refund of duty - abatement of duty due to non production of notified goods from 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011 under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty Rules) 2010 - rejection on the ground that there is no provision for grant of interest under Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules - Appellant also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Prem Products vs. CCE Agra 2017 (9) TMI 1541 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD in which Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity determination and collection of Duty) Rules 2008 were in issue and there also the appellant therein claimed interest for delayed refund. Held that - There is no change in the 2008 Rules and 2010 Rules so far as the issue in the present matter is concerned - In this matter there is delay in refund of duty from 21.3.2012 to 19.10.2016 and there is no dispute that the appellant had claimed interest on delay refunds after three months from 21.12.2011 i.e. from 21.3.2012 under Section 11 BB of the Act and the same has been recorded in the adjudicating order also and the same has only been denied on the ground that this Tribunal has not directed for payment of interest on delay refund and also that there is no provision for grant of interest under Rule 10 of 2010 Rules. Merely because the interest on refund is not directed doesn t mean that it has been refused or rejected. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection for interest under Rule 10 of 2010 Rules. Analysis: The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to abatement of duty under the Compound Levy Scheme. The appellant had filed a refund claim amounting to ?9,97,500 under Section 11B of the Act, which was initially rejected but later allowed by the Tribunal in a previous order. Following the Tribunal's order, the appellant applied for a refund of ?8,07,500 for 17 days, but the claim for interest was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority. The appellant argued that interest should be granted under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, which provides for interest on delayed refunds. The appellant cited Rule 19 of the 2010 Rules, which states that all provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules are applicable mutatis mutandis to the 2010 Rules. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim for interest, stating there is no provision for it under Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules. The appellant contended that Section 11BB of the Act should apply, as per Rule 19 of the 2010 Rules. The appellant referred to a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal case where interest was granted for delayed refunds. The Tribunal noted that there was a delay in refund from 21.3.2012 to 19.10.2016, and the appellant had claimed interest under Section 11BB of the Act. The Tribunal held that just because interest was not directed in the previous order did not mean it was rejected. Citing the Supreme Court decision and the Tribunal case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the entitlement to interest on delayed refunds after three months from the date of filing the refund claim until the refund is sanctioned. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant is entitled to interest on delayed refunds as per Section 11BB of the Act, despite the absence of a specific provision in Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules. The decision was based on the application of relevant legal provisions and precedents, ensuring the appellant's right to interest on the delayed refund claim.
|
