9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The relevant facts of the two cases may be briefly noted. W.P. (C) No. 1166/2012 4. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, owning amongst others the Chabua Tea Estate in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam. Petitioner is engaged in the business of cultivation and manufacture of tea and tea waste, which are exigible to excise duty under Chapter 9 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, having central excise registration number. 5. The Central Government formulated new industrial policy in the year 1997 giving various incentives to stimulate industrial development in the North Eastern Region. Such incentives included exemption from payment of excise duty for a period of 10 years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... August, 1999, September, 1999, May, 2000, September, 2000, November, 2001 and December, 2001 involved amounts of over Rs. 5 lakhs, which required audit clearance. Thus, an amount of Rs. 33,09,009/- (Rs. 1,10,61,418/- - Rs. 77,52,409/-) was kept pending. 9. The sanctioned amount of Rs. 77,52,409/- was refunded to the petitioner. 10. Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh (respondent No. 3) preferred appeal against aforesaid order dated 5-8-2005. The appellate authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 31-1-2006 rejected the appeal and upheld the order dated 5-8-2005. 11. Revenue thereafter preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (CESTAT). However, CESTAT by order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, Nagaon by order dated 16-6-2004 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 10,44,628/- as excise duty refund to be repaid to the petitioner No. 1 for the period from 1-1-2001 to 14-7-2002. The said authority also passed order to appropriate an amount of Rs. 9,88,010/- from the aforesaid sanctioned amount as interest u/s 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, refund of Rs. 56,618/- was ordered for payment to petitioner No. 1. 18. Petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 7251/2004 before this Court questioning the aforesaid action of the authority on levying interest on the excise duty refund and appropriating major chunk of the excise duty refund. A Single Bench of this Court by the Judgment and Order dated 22-4-2010 declared such appropriatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest, the respondents stated that nature of refund envisaged in the notification dated 8-7-1999 is qualitatively different from refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it was not on account of any excess payment of excise duty by the manufacturers but was designed to give effect to exemption. Consequently, it is contended that provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable in such cases. 23. We have heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. S. Kejriwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise for the respondents. 24. As the issue involved in both the cases is the same, as has been noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in the said notification. Even in case of likely delay, refund has to be made on provisional basis. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the admissible excise duty refund cannot be withheld by the central excise authority. 27. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deals with claim for refund of duty. It provides that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application with relevant documents and evidence for refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date. Under sub-section (2) of Section 11B, if on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. 30. In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid two provisions, referred to a circular dated 1-10-2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi wherein and whereby the Board stressed that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted automatically for any refund (emphasis ours) sanctioned beyond a period of three months. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that liability of the Revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
