9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t date for filing a refund claim under Section 11B has no significance in determining the date for payment of interest under Section 11BB - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/3145/2011 - A/30039/2019 - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 sanctioned the refund and ordered it to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, holding that the burden of the duty was passed on to the consumers. On an appeal, the First Appellate Authority in his Order-in-Appeal dated 06.08.2010 held that the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment, but rejected the claim of interest by the respondents herein. Thereafter, the Department filed an appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2011 which was dismissed by the Hon ble High Court on 11.08.2011 has having no merits. The Department had filed a SLP against the order of the High Court which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.02.2012. 2. The Revenue also filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the Deputy Commissioner s Order-in-Original dated 23.02.2011 sanctioning the refund along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority and submits that the issue is relevant date for sanctioning of interest under Section 11BB has been categorically decided by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Vs. UOI as reported at [2011 (273) ELT (3) (S.C.)] para 15 of which reads as follows: 15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is the liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
