2016 (3) TMI 68 - SC - Central Excise

Claim of interest on delayed Refund - delay in grant of refund - relevant date to be computed from the date of application of refund or from the date of rectification of defect in the refund application - Held that - It is not a case where the assessee is claiming automatic refund. It is a case that pertains to grant of interest where the refund has been granted. The grievance pertains to delineation by the competent authority in a procrastinated manner. In our considered opinion, the principle laid down in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India ) wherein held liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made would apply on all fours to the case at hand. It is obligatory on the part of the Revenue to intimate the assessee to remove the deficiencies in the application within two days and, in any event, if there are still deficiencies, it can proceed with adjudication and reject the application for refund. The adjudicatory process by no stretch of imagination can be carried on beyond three months. It is required to be concluded within three months. The decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra) commends us and we respectfully concur with the same. - Decided against the revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product "Rooh Afza" under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Refund of the differential duty paid under protest.
3. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund under Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the product "Rooh Afza":
The respondent, M/s. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, classified "Rooh Afza" under sub-heading 2201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986. However, the Revenue contended that it should be classified under sub-heading 2107.91. This dispute led to steps for recovery of the differential duty, which the respondent paid under protest. The initial adjudicator, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, and the Commissioner (Appeals) both rejected the respondent's classification. The Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) also dismissed the respondent's appeal. The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court, which in Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut (1999) 6 SCC 617, ruled in favor of the respondent, classifying "Rooh Afza" under heading 2201.90. The Supreme Court set aside the tribunal's order and directed consequential relief.

2. Refund of the differential duty paid under protest:
Following the Supreme Court's judgment, the respondent filed for a refund of Rs. 3.74 crores on 25th August 1999. The Revenue requested evidence that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers and proof of payment under protest. The respondent provided the necessary documents and certification. The Assistant Commissioner (Div. I), Ghaziabad, after examining the claim and submissions, allowed the refund application. The refund amount of Rs. 3.74 crores was issued by cheque on 15th November 2000.

3. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund under Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad for interest on the delayed refund. The High Court, referencing Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruled that the respondent was entitled to interest from 26th November 1999 to 15th November 2000. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the application for refund was defective and that the period for interest should commence only after rectification of defects. The Supreme Court, however, held that the interest under Section 11-BB becomes payable on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, regardless of any defects. The Court cited the principles laid down in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 292, which stated that interest is payable from the date of expiry of three months from the receipt of the application, not from the date of rectification or adjudication. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the respondent's entitlement to interest.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the classification of "Rooh Afza" under heading 2201.90, confirmed the refund of Rs. 3.74 crores to the respondent, and ruled that the respondent was entitled to interest on the delayed refund from the date of expiry of three months from the receipt of the refund application. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was affirmed.

← Previous Next →