2020 (1) TMI 164 - AT - Customs

Interest on delayed refund of SAD - Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. dated 28/04/2008 - grant of interest was denied on the ground that there is no provision for payment of interest in the N/N. 102/2007 - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the appellant is eligible for interest for delay in payment of refund in view of the statutory provision but he has wrongly considered the date of filing the claim as 6th June 2017 which was only the date of submitting the copy of the Tribunal s Final Order with a request for early sanction of the refund due with eligible interest. In fact this has resulted in reducing the period of delay to mere 7 days whereas as per the appellant the actual delay has been from 857 days to 399 days as detailed in the statement annexed with the appeal. This issue of interest has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Apex Court in para 14-15 has held that the assessee is entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date of making the application though the judgment of the Apex Court in the context of Section 11BB which is parimateria to Section 27A of the Customs Act having identical provisions. The appellant is entitled to interest of 43,091.42 as per the statement of interest filed along with appeal papers - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) and interest calculation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD)
The appellant imported Rock Phosphate and cleared it locally after paying assessed duty, including SAD under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant filed refund claims for SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Assistant Commissioner initially rejected the refund claim, stating that as no sales tax was collected on the goods, the appellant was not eligible for a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of SAD. Subsequently, the appellant requested interest on the delayed refund, which was denied by the Assistant Commissioner citing lack of provision for interest payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the eligibility for interest but miscalculated the delay period, resulting in a reduced interest amount. The appellant contended that the delay was from 857 days to 399 days, not 7 days as determined by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2: Interest Calculation
The appellant argued that the date of filing the refund claim was earlier than the date considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant relied on legal provisions, including Section 27 of the Customs Act, to support their claim for interest. Citing precedents like Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Pfizer Products India P. Ltd., the appellant emphasized the entitlement to interest after three months from the date of application. The Tribunal, following the legal principles established in previous judgments, held that the appellant was entitled to interest on the delayed refund amount. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the interest amount claimed in the statement filed with the appeal papers.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable in law due to the miscalculation of the interest period. By following legal precedents and statutory provisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to the interest amount of 43,091.42 as per the statement submitted.