9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of interest shall follow. The above adjudication is very much binding on this Tribunal. The Explanation to Section 11 BB further clarifies the controversy which says that where any order of refund is made by Commissioner (Appeals) Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any Court against the an order of Assistance Commissioner of Central Excise under sub-Section 2 of Section 11 B, the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or as the case may be shall be deemed to be an order passed under the sub-section 2 of the sub-Section B for the purposes of this Section - the application as has been referred in Section 11 B sub-Section 1 only has to be considered for the purposes of Section 11BB - In the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l thereof was also rejected vide order dated 4.3.03. An appeal was preferred before this Tribunal, which vide final order dated 2nd August 2005 was also rejected. An appeal thereafter was preferred before Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan. The Hon ble Court vide judgment dated 13.8.08 while setting aside the aforesaid orders remanded the case to Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur to re-adjudicate the claim afresh. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal No. 67 dated 30.06.09 again rejected the appeal on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appeal thereof was preferred before the CESTAT. Vide Final Order No. 53513 dated 08.10.2015 the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. It is thereafter that the aforesaid refund of ₹ 3,36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Though this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 08.10.2015 has decided the issue of unjust enrichment in favour of the appellant, but the fact still remains is that after the said order, the application for seeking refund was filed on 18th January, 2016 and the refund has been sanctioned on 17th February, 2016. As such, the same is well within the period of 3 months as required under Section 11 BB of CEA, 1944. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I observe that the only controversy to be adjudicated is as to whether the Department is liable to pay the interest on the amount of refund sanctioned. For the purpose, the relevant sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable. 9. This has been appreciated by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) vs. Union of India ORS 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX and Gurjat State Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Anand 2018-TIOL-485-CESTAT-AHM. 10. The Hon ble Apex Court has also clarified that the Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
