9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is appropriate that interest at the rate of 8% be granted to the petitioner on the refund sanctioned by the authority from the expiry of three months from the date when the claim was first rejected by the concerned Authority. - petition allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - W. P. (C) 2647/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Vibhu Bakhru,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Tuli with Mr. Ankur Ved Tuli For the Respondents : Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vijay Chandra JUDGMENT Vibhu Bakhru, J (Oral) 1. Issue notice. 2. Ms Sonia Sharma, Senior standing counsel accepts notice. 3. This writ petition has been filed to impugn an order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and R-134/ REF/ 08-09 dated 21.10.2008) whereby the rebate claims for amounting to ₹ 7,29,636/- were sanctioned under Section 11B of the Act read with Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules and rebate claims amounting to ₹ 8,80,332/- were disallowed, as it was considered that the CVD levied under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 was not duty in respect of which rebate was admissible under Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules. 6. Aggrieved by the disallowance of the rebate claims, the petitioner preferred three appeals against the order-in-originals before the Commissioner of Excise (Appeals). By a combined order dated 17.07.2009, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the said appeals. Against the order dated 17.07.2009, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t challenged the order dated 13.06.2012 whereby refund for an amount of ₹ 8,80,332/- was sanctioned without interest and, secondly, for the reason that the order dated 17.12.2013 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise was not an appealable order. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The petitioner has referred to a common order dated 17.09.2012 passed by this court in WP(C) No.3696/2011 and in WP(C) No.3215/2011, whereby this court had disposed of said writ petitions in the following terms:- (ii) That the disposal of direction in this case means that the claim of the respondent that input against duty became ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion has been decided in favour of the petitioner, albeit, after a considerable lapse of time. In the present case, there has been an inordinate delay in allowing the rebate claims filed by the petitioner considering that the raw materials were imported almost eight years ago. In view of the above and following the decision of this court in WP(C) No.3696/2011 and in WP(C) No.3215/2011, it is appropriate that interest at the rate of 8% be granted to the petitioner on the refund sanctioned by the authority from the expiry of three months from the date when the claim was first rejected by the concerned Authority. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the interest at the rate of 8% is granted to the petitioner on the sum of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
