9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the refund is finally sanctioned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20561/2016-SM - 22721/2017 - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Syed Peeran, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.1.2016 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the interest claimed by the appellant for the period April 2008 to December 2013. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit under the jurisdiction of Cochin SEZ and are engaged in rendering Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services which are substantially export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od April 2009 to June 2009; January 2010 to March 2010; and July 2010 to September 2010 filed by the appellant) vide Final Order No.26721-26723/2013 dated 9.10.2013. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant filed an application dated 13.3.2012 before the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax for payment of the amount of refund in accordance with the orders of the Commissioner (A) and also for interest relating to such refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But the Assistant Commissioner did not give any response to the said application, then the appellant filed another application dated 5.9.2012 before the same authority seeking payment of said refund amount as ordered by the Commissioner (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to pass appropriate orders. Since there was no communication from the department even after the expiry of time granted by the Hon ble High Court, the appellant followed up with the Assistant Commissioner of Service tax vide letters dated 10.2.2015 and 8.4.2015 and with the Commissioner vide letter dated 13.4.2015 and prayed for payment of interest in accordance with the law for the period April 2008 to September 2009 and from October 2010 to December 2013. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 8.6.2015 and rejected the entire interest amount claimed by the appellant on the ground that an interest payment would only be applicable when the assessee has either paid duty in cash or has utilized the CENVAT credit for di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refunds. Learned counsel further submitted that by doing so, the department has completely reopened a case, which is not permitted under law. He also submitted that the CESTAT during the earlier round of proceedings had found that the refund claims filed by the appellants were in fact correct and the credit taken was in order. And therefore, all the refund claims had attained finality at this point of proceedings and no new/further grounds can be taken in second round of proceedings by the Commissioner (A) or the original authority. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Triveni Chemicals Ltd. Vs. UOI: 2007 (5) STR 177 wherein it was held that once an order has attained finality, in the absence of any appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. v. Union of India 2016 (42) STR 785 (Guj) Kamakshi Tradexim (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India 2017 (351) ELT 102 (Guj) Mera Baba Realty Associate (P) Ltd v. CST, Delhi-III 2017 (52) STR 131 (Del) Final Order No. 20443/2017 dated 27.03.2017/31.03.2017 passed by Hon ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the matter of Videocon Industries Ltd Final Order No. 20464/2017 dated 5.04.2017 passed by Hon ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the matter of Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various judgments relied upon by the appellant to claim interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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. 6.2 Similarly in the case of C C Airport ACC Bangalore Vs. Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra , the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka after considering the provisions of the grant of interest on delayed refund in para 11 has observed as under: 11. From plain reading of the said Section, it is clear, that interest would be payable if the amount is not refunded within thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
