2016 (11) TMI 1222 - AT - Central Excise

Interest on delayed refund - whether the Appellants are eligible to interest on the amount refunded to them viz. ₹ 16,01,260/- and ₹ 81,984/- from 01.7.2000 i.e. the date of adjustment of the said amount from their sanctioned refund amount of Rs. ₹ 68,63,266.51 or from the date after succeeding in the Appellate proceeding, the date on which the amounts became due pursuant to the de novo Orders? - Held that - A plain reading of the provision of section 11BB, it is clear that interest is due, if the refund is not sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of the refund claim - I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd 2013 (11) TMI 883 - CESTAT NEW DELHI confronted with a similar question under more or less identical circumstances, where under after sanctioning rebate claim, the adjudicating authority instead of making payment of the same, adjusted it against the outstanding confirmed demand. Subsequently, on challenge of the confirmed demand Order before the Tribunal, the same was set aside resulting into payment of the earlier sanctioned amount adjusted against the said confirmed demand, allowing interest under Sec.11BB from the date of initial sanction of the refund. Interest is payable at the appropriate rate notified under Sec.11BB of CEA,1944 on the amounts viz. Rs. ₹ 16,01,260/- and ₹ 81,984/- from the date of its appropriation as claimed by the Appellant i.e. from 01.07.2000, till the date of payment of the said amount, pursuant to the de novo Orders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim adjustment against outstanding dues.
2. Eligibility for interest on refunded amounts.
3. Interpretation of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Refund claim adjustment against outstanding dues:
The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Central Excise, Vadodara, involving a common issue. Appeal No.E/837/2009 detailed the Appellants' refund claim, which was partially adjusted against outstanding dues confirmed in another proceeding. The Appellant challenged the adjustment, leading to a remand by the Tribunal for re-adjudication. Subsequently, a new refund claim was filed, and the amount was refunded, but the claim for interest was rejected. In Appeal No.E/1004/2011, the Appellant approached the Tribunal again after a de-novo order reduced the confirmed demand, resulting in a refund claim and a rejected interest claim. The main contention was whether the adjustment against outstanding dues affected the Appellants' entitlement to interest on the refunded amounts.

Issue 2: Eligibility for interest on refunded amounts:
The Appellant argued that interest was due from the date of the wrongful adjustment of the refund amount against another demand, citing relevant legal precedents. The Revenue, however, contended that no interest was payable as the refund was sanctioned and paid within the statutory period after re-quantification. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which stipulates interest on delayed refunds. Referring to past judgments, the Tribunal concluded that interest was payable on the refunded amounts from the date of appropriation as claimed by the Appellant, i.e., from 01.07.2000, till the date of payment following the de novo Orders, rejecting the Revenue's argument that interest was only due post re-quantification.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal's decision was guided by the provisions of Section 11BB, emphasizing that interest accrues if the refund is not sanctioned within three months from the date of filing the claim. Citing case laws like Jubilant Organosys Ltd and Super Cassettes Industries, the Tribunal established that interest liability starts from the expiry of three months from the filing date of the refund claim, irrespective of subsequent adjustments or re-quantifications. Consequently, the impugned Orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, granting interest on the refunded amounts from the date of appropriation as claimed by the Appellant.

---