9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that 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 order of refund is made. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 26 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - Anoop V. Mohta And And Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Appellant Mr. Vishal Agrawal a/w Ms. Isha Shah, Mr. P.k. Shetty i/by P.K. Shetty for the Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J. ) This is a State/Revenue Appeal, filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the interest provisions are applicable to such refund cases. Though certain queries were raised on 3 November 2004, by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise DivisionII, Silvassa, but the refund application was not decided and/or returned, including the claim of the Respondent. There is nothing to show that for want of documents and/or otherwise, the said application was rejected. There was delay in sanctioning the refund claim from three months after 27 September 2004 to 9 March 2006. The entitlement of interest, therefore, decided and by the impugned order the Respondent's Appeal was allowed. 5 The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Hamdard (WAQF) Laboratories 2016 (333) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) , while dealing with the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty already paid on the inputs. Thus the duty paid on inputs by the supplier has already been actually received by the exchequer. Therefore, this contention is, to say the least, misconceived. quote. 7 In view of above, the Judgments Kelvinator of India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2004 (167) E.L.T. 365 (Tri.Del.) and Ahmedabad Steel Craft Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad 2003 (153) E.L.T. 343 (Tri.Del.) , cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Revenue, are of no assistance to accept the case and/or proposed question of law to be decided. The Supreme Court findings and the provisions of law, so declared, as reproduced above, in our view, conclude the issue in favour of the Respondent and agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
