2018 (12) TMI 1922 - AT - Central Excise

Interest on delayed refund - reversal of Cenvat credit on the inputs laying in stock work in progress - N/N. 23/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - HELD THAT - In this case in pursuance to Notification No.23/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 the tractors manufactured by the appellant became exempt from payment of duty. Therefore appellant was directed to reverse the Cenvat credit through PLA for input laying in stock work in progress and contained finished goods. Admittedly at the time of availment of Cenvat credit the tractors are dutiable. Therefore they were entitled to take Cenvat credit of inputs and capital goods. The appellants are entitled to pay interest from the date of payment of deposit till its realization - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of interest on delayed refund by the authorities.
2. Applicability of Section 11BB of the act.
3. Entitlement to claim interest after a period of 3 months.
4. Interpretation of Notification No.23/2004-CE regarding duty exemption and Cenvat credit reversal.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of interest on delayed refund by the authorities. The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of tractors, who became exempt from duty payment under Notification No.23/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The appellant was directed to reverse Cenvat credit on inputs, including those in stock and work in progress. The appellant paid the Cenvat credit under protest, and a show cause notice was issued for reversal of the credit. The Tribunal previously held that the appellant was not required to reverse the credit as per the notification. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim in 2007, but interest on delayed payment was not refunded.

The appellant argued that the amount was paid under protest and was not duty payable by them, thus Section 11BB of the act was not applicable. They cited a decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in support of their argument. On the other hand, the revenue contended that the interest was rightly denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the appellant could claim interest after a period of 3 months as indicated in the impugned order.

After hearing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the tractors manufactured by the appellant became duty exempt under the notification. The appellant was directed to reverse the Cenvat credit, which was paid under protest. The Tribunal previously decided that the amount paid under protest was not a duty. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to claim interest from the date of payment till realization. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellants were entitled to interest payment from the date of deposit until realization.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting them the entitlement to interest payment from the date of deposit until realization.