9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or their satisfaction but taking of such longer time for getting additional information for satisfaction cannot be made the ground for non payment of interest. - date of refund application and payment of interest after three months thereafter, cannot be postponed under any circumstances. If the view expressed by Revenue is accepted than in every refund claim department will ask for certain information and shift the burden on the assessees for not furnishing the required information/ documents in time. The whole purpose of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 will be thus defeated. - Following decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. UOI [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India] - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same to the consumer welfare fund on the aspect of 'Unjust Enrichment'. Aggrieved by the orders passed by adjudicating authority Respondents filed appeals with Commissioner (Appeals) who vide OIA No. 34 to 38/Comm(A)/JMN/2013 dated 26.2.2013 remanded the case to the adjudicating authority with the direction to re-verify claims with consequential relief if found in order. In view of OIA dated 26.2.2013 verifications were done and refunds were sanctioned on 21.5.2013 but no interest was paid to the Respondent for delayed payments which was also allowed by the first appellate authority under OIA No. 135-140/COMMR-A-/JMN/2014 dated 28.04.2014 against which the present proceedings are being argued before us. 3. Shri K. Sivakumar (AR) appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port that asking for subsequent information not prescribed will not postpone the date of receipt of refund application:- (a) Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. UOI -[2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC)] (b) Swaraj Mazda Limited vs. UOI - [2009 (235) ELT 788 (Bom.)] (c) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Paris Waves - [2008 (224) ELT 295 (Tri. Bang.)] (d) J.K. Cement Works vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs - [2004 (170) ELT 4 (Rej.)] (e) Assistant Commissioner vs. J.K. Cement Works - [2005 (179) ELT A150 (S.C.)] (f) Jayanta Glass Limited vs. CCE, Kolkata - [2004 (165) ELT 516 (Tri. LB)] (g) CCE, Madurai vs. Madura Coats Pvt. Limited - [2008 (228) ELT 433 (Tri. Chennai)] (h) Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs. UOI - [2005 (188) ELT 476 (All.)] (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded late by the Respondent and that there was no delay in sanction of refund claims. Respondent on the other hand is of the view that all the prescribed documents were provided well in time. It is their case that even Chartered Accountant's certificate was also produced and only department took a lot of time in getting convinced. 5.1 Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 is relevant and is reproduced below:- SECTION 27A. - Interest on delayed refunds. - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 to an 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 applicant interest at such rate, not below five percent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpreted by Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. UOI (supra) under Para 9 of the judgment as follows:- 9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity did not find that the documents necessary for granting of refund were not filed along with the application. On the contrary, the appeal order shows that two necessary documents showing (i) that the duty has been paid on the chassis and (ii) that the duty has also been paid on the buses, were produced on record and the finding in favour of the petitioner on both these aspects are recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. The only thing that was not done and the appellate authority had directed to be done was correlation of those documents to find out the identity of the chassis numbers and the proceedings were remanded by the appellate authority only for establishing correlation. Thus, we find that the findings recorded by the Revisional a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
