2016 (11) TMI 412 - HC - Central Excise

Interest payable on delayed refund - Held that - No substance in the contention for what the governing words are if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11-B to any applicant is not refunded .. . Therefore, if that duty ordered to be refunded is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of section 11-B, then, the liability to pay interest arises. We find that the order to refund duty was passed well after section 11-BB was brought on the statute book.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed by the respondent/assessee.
2. Applicability of section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Denial of interest on delayed refund.
4. Interpretation of the governing words in the context of duty refund.

Refund Claim:
The respondent/assessee accepted an order-in-original dated 7th November, 1997, with a restricted demand of ?72,84,929 and an imposed penalty. A refund claim was filed based on these findings, which was earlier rejected on limitation grounds but later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The amount was adjusted against arrears, and the respondent filed a claim for interest on the extra amount beyond 90 days. The tribunal allowed the claim, citing the applicability of section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for interest on delayed refunds.

Applicability of Section 11-BB:
The appellant argued that section 11-BB cannot be applied due to a pre-deposit made prior to 26th May 1995. However, the court found no substance in this contention, emphasizing that if duty ordered to be refunded is not refunded within three months from the date of the application, the liability to pay interest arises. The order to refund duty was passed after the introduction of section 11-BB, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's argument.

Denial of Interest on Delayed Refund:
The court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the denial of interest on the delayed refund. The tribunal's decision to allow interest based on the view that section 11-BB mandates interest on delayed refunds was upheld, emphasizing that the appeal lacked merit and substance.

Interpretation of Governing Words:
The court concluded that the order of the tribunal did not raise any substantial question of law. It highlighted that the questions proposed in the appeal did not align with the contentions raised before the tribunal. This discrepancy, along with the lack of merit in the appeal, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of aligning arguments presented in the appeal with those raised before the tribunal for consideration.