9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant that on examination of refund claim, the Range Officer vide letter dated 26.12.2011 had submitted a report to the refund sanctioning authority, stating that the refund claim is admissible to the appellant. Since, genuineness of such report of the Range Officer has not been questioned by the ld. DR for Revenue; I am of the firm view that the date of filing the refund application by the appellant on 20.10.2011 should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination / computation of the interest liability. Therefore, in view of the fact that the refund application filed by the appellant on 20.10.2011 was ultimately entertained and sanctioned by the original authority on 31.08.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he incidence of excess paid duty has not been transferred to the buyer of goods. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 22.05.2012, allowed the appeal by way of remand and directed the original authority to re-consider the refund claim subject to verification of relevant documents/ records. Pursuant to the said remand directions, the original authority completed the denovo adjudication proceedings based on the available records and those furnished by the appellant during such proceedings vide Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2012, allowing the refund claim in favour of the appellant. Since, payment of interest for delayed sanction of refund amount was not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect has been dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22.05.2012, holding that the excess /double payment of duty has not been recovered from the customers. To justify his stand that the appellant is entitled for interest, the ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Topland Exports vs. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2013 (297) ELT 298 (Tri. Ahmd.). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the refund was sanctioned within a period of three months from the date of submission of the desired documents, there was no delay on the part of the Department, and thus, the appellant is not entitled for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ultimately entertained and sanctioned by the original authority on 31.08.2012, which is beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, in my opinion, the appellant should be entitled for interest for the period beyond 3 months from the date of filing refund application, till the date of actual payment of refund amount. In other words, in this case, the appellant is entitled for interest from 20.01.2012 to 30.08.2012. 7. The question of unjust enrichment aspect has been dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 22.05.2012, wherein upon proper verification of the documents, he had arrived at the conclusion that double payment of duty for which the refund claim lodged by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
