2010 (12) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ule 2 (i) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, they also paid the service tax on the commission paid to the foreign commission agent amounting to Rs 24,28,022/-.  Interest amounting to Rs 2,30,018/- on this amount of service tax was paid on 17.12.2007.  CENVAT Credit of the above service tax was taken and utilized by the appellant for payment of duty on their final products and, therefore, they did not claim refund of the above amount of service tax which, according to them, was not payable in law.  On 2.1.2008, they claimed refund of the above amount of interest which had been paid on 17.12.2007 on account of the delay of payment of service tax.  In a show-cause notice, the department proposed to reject the refund c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... counsel, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the refund claim. 3. The learned SDR reiterates the findings recorded by the original authority and the first appellate authority.  He submits that, prior to 12.5.2008, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not provide for refund of interest and, therefore, the refund claim filed by the appellant on 2.1.2008 was not liable to be allowed.  It is further submitted that the decisions cited by the learned counsel did not take into account the above legal position and, therefore, might not be applicable to the instant case.  Adverting to the facts of this case, the learned SDR submits that, as the appellant chose to enjoy the benefit of CENVAT credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowed in the facts and circumstances of this case.  The facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.  In the case of Mothersons Sumi Systems Ltd (supra), the appellant had filed claim for refund of a certain amount of duty and also for refund of the interest paid thereon.  The issue considered by the Tribunal was whether the claim for refund of interest was liable to be rejected in the absence of statutory provision for such refund.  Similar issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of CM Invirosystems Pvt Ltd (supra) also.  In both the cases, the absence of statutory provision was held to be no bar against refund of interest.  In the case of Northern Mi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X