2017 (3) TMI 289 - AT - Central Excise

Interest u/s 11BB - denial on the ground that refund claim has been sanctioned within 3 months from the date of CESTAT order dated 9.9.2009 as well as within 3 months from the date of filing of refund claim dated 9.11.2009 - Held that - The refund application was filed by the appellants on 9.11.2009. Since the refund was sanctioned within 3 months from the date of CESTAT order dated 9.9.2009 as well as within 3 months from the date of filing of refund claim dated 9.11.2009, both the adjudicating authority and appellate authority have rightly held that the appellant is not eligible for interest u/s 11BB - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.353/BK/GGN/2010 dated 30.08.2010
2. Concessional rate of duty on vehicle purchase
3. Issuance of show cause notice
4. Order-in-Original No.48/CE/2003 dated 7.7.2003
5. Appeal against Order-in-Original
6. CESTAT Final Order No.684/2009-EX[DB] dated 9.9.2009
7. Claim for refund and interest
8. Rejection of interest claim by adjudicating authority
9. Appeal against rejection of interest claim
10. Request for decision on merits
11. Upholding of Commissioner (Appeals) order
12. Dismissal of the appeal

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the Order-in-Appeal No.353/BK/GGN/2010 dated 30.08.2010, which was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon. The case revolved around the purchase of a Maruti Wagan-R AX at a concessional rate of duty of 16% based on a certificate issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprise. However, a subsequent show cause notice alleged that the certificate had been withdrawn, leading to a demand for duty payment. The manufacturer paid the duty and interest, which was adjusted against their liability, prompting the appellant to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that the order was against the manufacturer and not the appellant. The appellant then approached CESTAT, which in Final Order No.684/2009-EX[DB] dated 9.9.2009, set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Following the CESTAT order, the appellant filed a refund claim of ?99,671/- and sought interest from 24.5.2003.

3. The adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's claim for interest under Section 11BB, stating that the refund claim was sanctioned within 3 months of the CESTAT order and the refund claim filing date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the appellant to file an appeal against the rejection of the interest claim.

4. The appellant requested a decision on the case's merits, emphasizing the facts and submissions in their appeal. After hearing arguments and reviewing the records, it was concluded that the refund claim arose due to the CESTAT order, and since the refund was sanctioned within the specified timeframes, the appellant was deemed ineligible for interest under Section 11BB. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.