9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.1.2007 for an amount of Rs. 32,85,761.57 which they had earlier paid under protest. A show cause notice was subsequently issued to them on 09.4.2007 proposing its rejection/transfer to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant filed necessary evidences and a Chartered Accountant Certificate claiming that the burden of duty has been borne by them and not passed on to any other person. However, their refund claim was rejected on 06.11.2007 on the ground of unjust enrichment. Later, on filing an appeal against the said order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal vide order dated 28.11.2008 and consequently the refund amount of Rs. 31,76,563/- was received by the appellant on 17.4.2009. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority as on 06.11.2007 that cannot be a ground for denial of interest on expiry of three months from the date of application of refund. In support, they referred to the judgment dated 18.3.2016 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case Purnima Advertising Agency Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application No.20496 of 2015. 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Further, he submitted that the appellant had filed refund application after one year from the date of order of the Tribunal. Hence, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh - 2003 (157) ELT 500 (SC) the refund itself is barred by limitation. Ld. A.R. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Purnima Advertising Agency Pvt. Ltd's case (supra)., the appellant cannot be deprived the right to claim interest even though the amount was transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund for no fault of theirs. Also, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dena Stuff's (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.'s case (supra) their Lordships interpreting Sec. 11BB of CEA,1944 observed as: "15. 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 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
