Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 09 issued by the Commissioner was the application as envisaged in Section 11B for refund of duty. All along the stand of the department has been that the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Erode was not the competent authority to sanction the rebate amount but the competent authority was the Commissioner. The applicants had filed the claim before the Commissioner on 29-3-2000 and 27-1-2000 itself and those applications have been sanctioned by the Commissioner, albeit with delay. So those applications are to be treated as applications for refund and not the papers sent to Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode for getting the money consequent to the sanction order issued by the Commissioner - appellant is eligible for interest as claime .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the amount. The appellant received payment vide cheque forwarded under cover of letter dated 24-7-2009. According to the appellant there was a delay of 3309 days for one claim and 3370 days for another claim in granting the refund over and above the interest free period of three months specified in Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. So appellant claimed interest of Rs. 1,81,115/- for belated payment of refund. This claim was filed with Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode. He advised that he is not competent to sanction the refund and the competent authority is the authority competent to sanction the abatement, that is Commissioner of Central Excise. Then the appellant filed claim with the Commissioner. They received a reply .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... date of Refund Application filed by the Assessees under Section 118 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is 2-2-2009 and the date of receipt of the above Refund Application by the A.C. is 6-4-2009. Therefore, the 3 months period for payment of interest should be worked out from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from 6-4-2009 till the refund of such duty viz. 24-7-2009. The date immediately after the expiry of three months from 6-4-2009 is 5-7-2009. Therefore, the number of days of delay works out to only 19 days (No. of days from 6-7-2009 to 24-7-2009). As per Notification No. 67/2003-C.E. (N.T.), the rate of interest for delayed sanction of refund is 6% per annum w.e.f. 12-9-2003. Applying the above rate of interest, the in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of [duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty] in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] had not been passed on by him to any other person : SECTION 11BB. Interest on delayed refunds. - 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, there shall be paid to that ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isaged in Section 11B for refund of duty. All along the stand of the department has been that the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Erode was not the competent authority to sanction the rebate amount but the competent authority was the Commissioner. This stand is in conformity with provisions of Rule 96ZQ(7) and I go by this rule. The applicants had filed the claim before the Commissioner on 29-3-2000 and 27-1-2000 itself and those applications have been sanctioned by the Commissioner, albeit with delay. So those applications are to be treated as applications for refund and not the papers sent to Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode for getting the money consequent to the sanction order issued by the Commissioner. 9. So I hold that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates