9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 375-392/2012 - Dated:- 20-4-2012 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. Shri S.S.Thakur, Vice-President For the Appellants Shri P. Arul, DR For the Respondent Heard both sides. Ld. DR raises a preliminary objection that the issue relates to grant of interest on rebate and hence the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals. 2. The learned Vice President of the appellant-company argues that the rebate claims have already been settled and what the appellants are seeking is interest under Section 11BB of the Act which is allowed for delayed sanction of refund. He, further, states that as per Explanation to Section 11B of the Act, refund includes rebate. His contention is that the Tribunal has jurisdiction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself. 6. The facts of the case are not disputed. The impugned claims were filed on different dates from 28.10.2009 to 15.4.2010 and the claims were sanctioned on different dates during January 2011 to April 2011. As such, there was a delay beyond 3 months period from the date of filing the claims. 7. It is the contention of the appellants that in view of the delay, they should be paid interest as per the provisions of Section 11BB whereas the same has been denied by the original authority as well as the lower appellate authority leading to these appeals. The ground taken up by the department for such denial is that the appellants had gone to the Hon ble High Court at the stage of consideration of the refund claims and issue of SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... layed refund. As regards the citation relating to Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in Income Tax cases, they are not relevant to the issue apart from the fact that the Hon ble Supreme Court has held therein that interest has to be granted as per the statutory provisions. I find that in regard to Central Excise Law, there is specific provision for grant of interest under Section 11BB and there is no reason why the same should not be followed. The matter has also been dealt with at length in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. cited supra wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that interest has to be paid beyond the delay of 3 months from the date of filing the claim. 9. As such, the impugned orders denying interest t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
