2017 (12) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Interest on refund - Relevant period - Submission of appellant is that anti-dumping duty cannot be levied during intervening period i.e. between the period of expiry of provisional notification and issuance of definitive levy notification - Held that - harmonious reading of the provisions contained in Section 11B and Section 11BB demonstrates that an order of refund under Section 11B(2) is pre-requisite and default in carrying out the provision of Section 11B gives rise to interest - it is difficult to entertain the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest from the date of deposit of the amount made - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether interest is payable on the deposit made in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court during the intervening period between the expiry of provisional notification and the issuance of the definitive levy notification.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to interest from the date of deposit as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that anti-dumping duty cannot be levied during the intervening period between the expiry of provisional notification and the issuance of the definitive levy notification. The history of the case involved the appellant facing adjudication for duty demand, leading to a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The High Court allowed the appellant to deposit the duty amount, and subsequently, the Supreme Court held that no anti-dumping duty should be levied during the intervening period. The appellant contended that interest should be granted from the date of deposit, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant sought interest from the date of deposit as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue argued that the refund was granted promptly after the appellant's application, and thus, no interest should be admissible. The Tribunal referred to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which outlines the process for claiming a refund of duty. It highlighted that an order for refund is a prerequisite under sub-section (2) of Section 11B, and interest is payable if the refund is not granted within three months. The Tribunal emphasized that interest is mandated by Section 11BB if the refund is delayed, as per the provisions of the Act and relevant case law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that interest cannot be granted from the date of deposit made in accordance with the High Court's order. The decision was based on the legal provisions of the Central Excise Act and the requirement for an order of refund under Section 11B(2) before interest becomes payable. The Tribunal highlighted that its role is not that of a court of equity and must adhere to the legal framework. The judgment referenced relevant legal precedents to support the decision, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures in refund cases.