9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India and hence, the petitions deserve to be allowed in terms of the relief prayed for by the petitioners. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19916 of 2016 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19932 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A.S. SUPEHIA, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : AMAL PARESH DAVE, ADVOCATE, MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MS AVANI S MEHTA, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Rule. Ms. Avani Mehta, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 in both these petitions. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present cases, which lies in a very narrow compass, the petitions were taken up for final hearing today. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as appearing in Special Civil Application No.19916 of 2016. 3. The petitioners exported 102 consignments of Pan Masala under claim of rebate/ refund of excise duties aggregating to ₹ 3,30,09,140/- paid on such good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 4. The petitioner company vide letters dated 15.10.2016 and 08.11.2016, requested the adjudicating authority to pay statutory interest under section 11BB of the Act for delay in sanctioning and paying the rebate claims. By the impugned communication dated 17/21.11.2016, the adjudicating authority has communicated to the petitioner company that the rebate had been sanctioned and paid within the time limit specified by this court and has, accordingly, not entertained the petitioner s claim for interest on delayed payment of rebate, which has given rise to the present petitions. 5. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the provisions of section 11B of the Act, which provide for claim for refund of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty. It was pointed out that under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act, any person claiming refund is required to make an application for refund within the prescribed time limit. Under sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on account of any supervening circumstances. 5.1 The learned advocate also placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this court in the case of M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Limited v. State of Gujarat and others rendered on 09.10.2014 in Special Civil Application No.12713 of 2014, wherein the court had held that the respondents could not avoid the liability of paying the refund with statutory interest and even if alternative remedy is available in view of such clear and stark facts, it was not necessary to relegate the petitioner therein to the appellate forum. It was further submitted that no order has been made by the adjudicating authority against which the petitioners can prefer an appeal before the appellate forum and hence, the only remedy left with the petitioners is to prefer the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Opposing the petition, Ms. Avani Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents reiterated the reasoning adopted by the Assistant Collector in the communication dated 07.11.2016 and placed reliance upon the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the second respondent. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) wherein, the court has held thus: 11. Section 11-BB, the pivotal provision, reads thus: 11-BB. Interest on delayed refunds .-If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11- B to any 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 per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: Provided that where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11-B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this section from the date immediately after three mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. (See Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739.) 15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract a Circular dated 1-10-2002, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, wherein referring to its earlier Circular dated 2-6-1998, whereby a direction was issued to fix responsibility for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of application, the Board has reiterated its earlier stand on the applicability of Section 11-BB of the Act. Significantly, the Board has stressed that the provisions of Section 11-BB of the Act are attracted automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. The circular reads thus: Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX, dated 1-10-2002 F. No. 268/51/2002-CX.8 Government of India Ministry of Finance ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpretation. Explaining the intent, import and the manner in which it is to be implemented, the circulars clearly state that the relevant date in this regard is the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Section 11-B(1) of the Act. 19. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para 1 supra is that the liability of the Revenue to pay interest under Section 11-BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11-B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. 8. Thus, the Supreme Court, in the above decision has clearly held that the liability of the Revenue to pay interest under section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. Under the circumstances, the contention advanced by the respondents that the orders sanctioning rebate having been passed and the amount ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
