2017 (8) TMI 1090 - HC - Central Excise

Non-speaking order - According to the petitioner, the application was complete in all respects and if it was not so, the respondents were duty bound to return the same within 48 hours of filing such application. Admittedly, this having not been done, the petitioner would state that the application for refund was complete in all respects - Entitlement of interest - delayed payment of refund - Held that - it is too early a stage for this Court to apply these decisions since the factual matrix is yet to be verified which exercise obviously cannot be done in a writ petition especially when the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to file an appeal as against the impugned order as the appellate authority has jurisdiction to call for the original files, verify the date of application, whether the application was complete in all respects and if it was not so, why it was not returned within 48 hours, whether the petitioner had sought for time to produce the original challans, whether the original challans were produced along with the application for refund or was it submitted only on 09.09.2014, what was the stage of the matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court between the date of the Tribunal s order, ie. 04.06.2009 and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court on 11.03.2014 etc. The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to present an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order restricting interest claim to 41 days; Factual dispute regarding submission date of original challans; Entitlement to interest from application date; Availability of appellate remedy.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Interest Restriction:
The petitioner contested the order limiting the interest claim to 41 days, arguing entitlement from the application date in 2011. The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the respondent's assertion of challan submission date, contending it was an afterthought to deny interest. Legal references were made to decisions by the High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court. The respondent defended the restriction, citing factual averments. The court observed the issue as factual, focusing on the challan submission date's significance for interest calculation.

2. Factual Dispute on Challan Submission:
The court noted the factual dispute on the date of challan submission, crucial for interest calculation. The refund order in 2015 acknowledged 114 challans, but interest was not addressed. The court emphasized the pending Supreme Court decision's impact on refund applications, questioning the denial of interest during this period. The court deemed these issues fact-based, necessitating verification beyond the writ's scope.

3. Entitlement to Interest and Appellate Remedy:
The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision post-exhaustion of remedies and directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal for a detailed factual examination. The court deemed premature the application of legal precedents without verifying the case specifics. It emphasized the appellate authority's fact-finding role in scrutinizing application completeness, challan submission, and case timeline, urging the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy.

4. Disposition and Appellate Direction:
Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the petitioner to appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise within sixty days. The directive allowed the appeal without limitation constraints, stressing expedited hearing and resolution. The court prioritized factual scrutiny by the appellate authority, ensuring a comprehensive review of the case specifics. The petitioner was granted a personal hearing opportunity, with no cost imposition.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into factual intricacies surrounding the interest claim restriction, challan submission date dispute, and the appellate remedy's significance. It underscores the appellate authority's role in fact-finding and detailed case evaluation, prompting the petitioner to pursue the appeal for a comprehensive review of the issues raised.