9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in reducing the period of delay to mere 7 days whereas as per the appellant the actual delay has been from 857 days to 399 days as detailed in the statement annexed with the appeal. This issue of interest has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Apex Court in para 14-15 has held that the assessee is entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date of making the application though the judgment of the Apex Court in the context of Section 11BB which is parimateria to Section 27A of the Customs Act having identical provisions. The appellant is entitled to interest of 43,091.42 as per the statement of inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the appellants were not eligible for refund of SAD paid and thereafter rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also considered that as no sales tax had been collected on sale of goods and therefore the appellant was not eligible for the refund claim. Thereafter the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20564-20581/2017 dated 27/04/2017 allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Thereafter the appellant along with the copy of the order of the Tribunal filed a letter dated 6th June 2017 for sanction of the refund due along with eligible interest. Assistant Commissioner of Customs granted the SAD refund but did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct refund was filed much earlier and the appellant only submitted a letter dated 6th June 2017 along with the Tribunal s Final Order dated 27/04/2017 requesting the Department for early sanction of the refund with eligible interest. He further submitted that this letter has been considered as the application for claiming the refund by the appellant and from this date three months has been excluded as provided under the law and only interest for 7 days has been allowed vide the impugned order. Learned counsel also referred to the provisions to sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Customs Act. He further submitted that even though the refund of SAD is provided under a Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. but the refund is subjected to the statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) has partially allowed the appeal and granted the interest for delay of 7 days. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Shakun Overseas Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2013 (297) E.L.T. 14 (Mad.) b. Indian Thermoplastics (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Kolkata 2004 (164) E.L.T. 156 (Tri.-LB) c. Ajay Exports Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2016 (335) E.L.T. 150 (Tri.-Mumbai) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant at the time of import paid the Special Additional Duty under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant subsequently had filed refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is parimateria to Section 27A of the Customs Act having identical provisions. Further the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pfizer Products India P. Ltd. (cited supra) followed the Ranbaxy Laboratories and granted the interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of filing the application. By following the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant and I hold that appellant is entitled to interest of 43,091.42 as per the statement of interest filed along with appeal papers. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. (O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
