9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m - I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd [2013 (11) TMI 883 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] confronted with a similar question under more or less identical circumstances, where under after sanctioning rebate claim, the adjudicating authority instead of making payment of the same, adjusted it against the outstanding confirmed demand. Subsequently, on challenge of the confirmed demand Order before the Tribunal, the same was set aside resulting into payment of the earlier sanctioned amount adjusted against the said confirmed demand, allowing interest under Sec.11BB from the date of initial sanction of the refund. Interest is payable at the appropriate rate notified under Sec.11BB of CEA,1944 on the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n de-novo proceeding, the Commissioner reduced the liability from ₹ 19,42,149.78 to ₹ 3,40,889.48. Consequently, the Appellant filed a refund claim for ₹ 16,01,260/- on 03.10.2007. The said amount was refunded to them vide Order dt.18.12.2007. On 10th Jan.2008, they had filed their claim for interest on refunded amount of ₹ 16,01,260/- from 01.07.2000 to 18.12.2007. Notice was issued on 11.04.2008 proposing rejection of their claim for interest. On adjudication, the said claim was rejected. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order and rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Appeal No.E/1004/2011:- Aggrieved by the confirmation of ₹ 3,40,889.48, in the de-no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Del, Jubilant Organosys Ltd Vs CCE Meerut - 2014 (301) ELT 542 (Tri-Del), Pet Metal P. Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara-II - 2015-TIOL-2047-CESTAT-AHM, CCE Kanpur Vs Kothari Products Ltd - 2010 (262) ELT 329 (Tri-Del). 6. Per Contra, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Authorized Representative submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944, interest is payable on expiry of three months after filing the refund claim till the date of sanction of the same. It is his contention that after confirmation of the demand by the Revenue, on Appeal, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the de novo Orders. The contention of the Appellant is that even though the refund was sanctioned on 30.06.2000, it was wrongfully adjusted against the outstanding demand confirmed by another Order No.3/BRC/MP/2007, dt.9.6.2000, within the statutory appeal period available to the Appellant. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that though the refund amount was sanctioned on 30.06.2000, it cannot be paid to the Appellant when certain dues were pending against the Appellant, which has been legitimately adjusted against the refund sanctioned. The contention of the Revenue is that the amount adjusted against the refund or separately recovered being due to the Govt., would not make any difference. Before addressing the controversy, it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section. 9. A pain reading of the above provision it is clear that interest is due, if the refund is not sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of the refund claim. I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd (supra) confronted with a similar question under more or less identical circumstances, where under after sanctioning rebate claim, the adjudicating authority instead of making payment of the same, adjusted it against the outstanding confirmed demand. Subsequently, on challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire case laws on the subject stands considered. As such, by taking note of the Hon ble Gujarat High Courts decision as also Supreme Court s decision, it stands held that the refund claim sanctioned but adjusted against the confirmed demands where the said confirmed demand are subsequently set aside, the assessee would be entitled to the interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of filing refund claim. Apart from the said decision, we also take note of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 251 (Tri.-Ahmd.) as also of the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE, Pune-II v. Sterlite Industries 2007 (212) E.L.T. 520 (Tri.) and Hon ble Gujarat High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
