9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1220 - AT - Central ExciseEntitlement to interest - delay in refund of duty - area based exemption - N/N. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 - Held that - reliance placed in the case of AMALGAMATED PLANTATIONS (P) LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA 2013 (11) TMI 589 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT where it was held that From a conjoint reading of Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 it is apparent that if any refund of excise duty is ordered under Section 11B(2) the same has to be refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section failing which interest will have to be paid - assessee is entitled to interest - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
Claim of interest for delayed payment of refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The case involved a respondent assessee availing exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 and claiming refund of Excise Duty for their final product Pan Masala (Plain) without tobacco, along with interest for delayed payment of refund. The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the interest claim of the assessee under Section 11BB. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents. The main contention raised by the Revenue was that the refund granted to the assessee was under an area-based exemption and not for wrongly paid duty, thus Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply. Additionally, the Revenue argued that the refund was in violation of the principle of unjust enrichment as the duty collected from the buyer was being refunded to the manufacturer. They also claimed that the refund was not for excess payment of duty but for setting up industries in backward states, and therefore, not covered under Section 11B. The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on the judgment of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, where it was clarified that once a manufacturer is entitled to exemption of excise duty under a notification, the duty paid must be refunded to the manufacturer as per the schedule mentioned in the notification. The Commissioner emphasized that the admissible excise duty refund cannot be withheld by the central excise authority, as per the provisions of Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court's decision highlighted that Section 11B of the Act deals with the claim for refund of duty, and any duty of excise paid is refundable under this section. The Court emphasized that the language of Section 11B is clear and unambiguous, and it does not differentiate between different types of duty refunds. The Court also referred to a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs stressing that interest under Section 11BB is applicable automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond three months. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, stating that the issue was already covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court, and there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the decision to grant interest under Section 11BB to the assessee, directing the jurisdictional excise officers to determine the interest amount payable within three months.
|
