9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Siddhant Chemicals Vs. Union of India [2014 (5) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that interest has to be paid automatically under Section 11BB of the CEA and the payment of interest is not dependent on claim by the party instead authority is statutorily obligated to pay the interest - interest allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20194/2017-SM - 22463/2017 - Dated:- 3-8-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Vinayaka Hegde, CA Vishnu Daya Co. For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Joint Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division-D, Bangalore, on the grounds that the claim is time-barred in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in as much as the Order-in-Appeal was passed on 12.04.2010, whereas the claim was filed on 19.04.2011, which is beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal and hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the facts and law. He further submitted that the appellant in the impugned order has mentioned th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner who also rejected the appeal of the appellant. Learned consultant further submitted that after the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) there was no requirement to file the second application for seeking refund. He also submitted that the Department has not challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he allowed the appeal of the appellant and held that the appellant is entitled to refund. He further submitted that in the present case both the authorities have wrongly applied Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 as made applicable to the Finance Act 1994. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Jaipur-I 2017 (345) E.L.T. 132 (Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Act and in support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) wherein it is held that Interest on delayed refund is payable under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the expiring of period of three months from the date of receipt of application under Section 11B(1) ibid and not from the date of order of refund or Appellate Order allowing such refund - Explanation to proviso to Section 11BB ibid introduces a deeming fiction that where order for refund is not made by Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner, but by Appellate Authority, such appellate order shall be deemed to be an order under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
