9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat Rules to the extent of 75% only. As the assessee had taken the credit for entire amount of CVD, they were directed by the jurisdictional superintendent to reverse the excess credit to the tube of Rs. 96,71,550/-. The respondents reversed the credit but filed a refund claim for the amount so reversed stating that they were eligible for 100% credit in pursuance of erstwhile Rule 57Q as amended w.e.f. 1-3-1997 which was rejected by the lower authority. On similar lines they have taken credit in respect of 100% CVD in respect of import of another set of machinery and reversed the credit amounting to Rs. 24,00,925/- as per direction of the jurisdictional superintendent for which they filed a refund claim which was also rejected by the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner......... Therefore it has to be duty of excise and not credit and can never be the refund of credit of CVD duty which is not duty of excise at all. It was further submitted that there was no occasion for claiming refund as the Commissioner (Appeals) has permitted them to take the credit and once the credit was permitted to be taken a formal claim of refund was not required to be filed at all. 5. The learned advocate for the respondents however submitted that under Section 11BB interest is due to the applicant if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section. He ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituent of duty and refund of erroneously reversed credit could not be denied on the ground that credit was not duty. 8. We have considered the submissions. We find that this is essentially a case of refund of erroneously reversed credit to which the provisions of Section 11B squarely apply as per Gujarat High Court decision cited supra. Further the refund has to be sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of the refund application and not from the date of ordering refund and since in this case the refund claims were filed in the year 1997 and were sanctioned in February 2003, the respondents are entitled to interest as per provision of Section 11BB. In view of the same, we find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
