9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original which is not permitted under law. Further, Tribunal in the case of Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (4) TMI 478 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has already granted interest for delayed payment of refunds after following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India]. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the delayed sanction of the refunds. Vide Order-in-Original dated 27.02.2018, the Adjudicating Authority denied the interest to the appellant on the ground that provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act shall not be applicable to delayed sanction of refunds of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CCR. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal with the Commissioner of Central Tax who, vide Order-in-Appeal No. 273/2018 dated 19.07.2018 inter alia, rejected the appeal on the ground that since the appellant had not challenged the Order-in-Original dated 23.10.2017 sanctioning the refund, same had attained finality and accordingly no interest, arising out of the same, can be granted to the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that refund, under Rule 5 CCR, shall be refunded under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act was granted. The relevant extract of the case is reproduced herein below: 11. "There is a basic fallacy in the premise on which the contention of Revenue is based. CENVAT credit is nothing else but credit for duty paid by the supplier of inputs, which are dutiable goods manufactured by the supplier or dutiable services rendered by the service provider. In principle such goods/services when utilized for further manufacture or providing service which are dutiable already carry the duty paid component as a part of its price/value, and hence the duty payable on the ultimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the refund has been sanctioned beyond the prescribed period. He also submitted that Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Annapurna Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (167) ELT 529 (Tri. Mum.) has held that Section 11B covers both refund of duty as well as refund of CENVAT credit and accordingly the provision of Section 11BB are applicable even for grant of refund of CENVAT credit. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UOI, 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) = 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX has upheld grant of interest in case of late disbursal of refund from the expiry of three months of refund application till refund is granted and not from the date of order of refund. Similarly, in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd., 2015 (315) ELT 608 (Tri. Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er new ground which was not there in the Order-in-Original which is not permitted under law. Further, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra has already granted interest for delayed payment of refunds after following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. cited supra. Further, I find that in view of the settled position of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court and Tribunal in the decisions cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
