9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2016 and CM No. 10745 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DEEPA SHARMA JJ. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Srinivas Kotni, Advocate along with Mr. Sridhar Potarajy, Mr. Goichangpou Gangmei, Advocate. Mr. Arjun Singh and Ms. Sindoora VNL, Advocates for the Respondents. ORDER The question of law sought to be urged by the appellant /revenue is that:- Whether the CESTAT fell into error in directing payment of interest upon the delayed refund as required under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act ? 2. The brief facts are that the respondent/assessee had claimed refund on service tax amounts deposited by it; that the assessee was entitled to the amount was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Therefore, contention of the Ld. AR that matter is to be transferred to the division bench is not acceptable. Now, I come to the issue whether appellant is entitled for interest for delayed refund. Now the factual matrix of the case it is an admitted position that while rejecting their refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority the appellant was retaining the amount of ₹ 4,24, 78,2641- with them and table incorporated in the order-in-original showing the date of payment by the appellant to the service recipient of the advance received by them. As per the table, the appellant has returned the amount of ₹ 6,11,41,066/- before filing the refund claim and a sum of ₹ 4,37,66,6701- were returned on 28.09.2010 and a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that contrary to departmental instructions deficient memo eliciting pointed responses were given on 22.10.2009 to which a reply was given on 30.11.2009. The competent officer did not deem it appropriate to consider these but rather rejected the entire applications as not maintainable. Eventually, the application was remitted for further consideration. In the interregnum, further developments took place in the form of return of amounts claimed as Service Tax Inputs. All these have been considered by the Tribunal which we notice had directed refund in a nuance manner for different periods. In these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the law declared in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. Union of India, 2011 (10) SCC 292 whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
