9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - also, the appellant has explained in detail in their grounds of appeal, reasons of the excess debit in their letter dt. 21/12/2018 but both the authorities did not consider the same. Also, same officer granted refund for immediate past period based on debit in ledger accounts but surprisingly failed to adopt the consistent stand for the impugned period - the original authority had erred in not appreciating the cenvat ledger account which showed a positive balance of ₹ 21,51,584/- at the time of filing the refund application for the subject period and erroneously concluded that the amount lying in balance is only ₹ 2,42,312/- - the appellant is entitled for refund of unutilised cenvat credit. Interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing to deny refund of unutilised cenvat credit. Appellant filed detailed justification for each of the grounds raised in the show-cause notice along with documentary evidences. After following due process, the learned Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on time bar vide its order dt. 27/03/2017. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide order dt. 14/07/2017, allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation and remanded the matter for examination on merits by the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter the appellant filed their letter dt. 19/07/2017 resubmitted the documents but the learned Assistant Commissioner vide his order dt. 28/12/2018 summarily rejected the explanation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted both the authorities have ignored the debit made in the cenvat register of the appellant which has been certified by the statutory auditor. He also submitted that the appellate authority erred in denying the refund despite concluding that the excess debit made for previous claims should have been taken as a suo-moto recredit and a separate debit of ₹ 3,25,927/- ought to be made by the appellant, when such an activity of reclaim and debit would not serve any material purpose apart from disclosure. He further submitted that the substantive right of the appellant to claim refund has been denied on account of procedure lapse when substantive condition of refund involving export, receipt of foreign exchange etc. has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record that there was excess debit of ₹ 7,41,358/- during immediately previous period and hence there was no need to debit it again during the subject period. This excess reversal has not been appreciated by the appellate authority which claimed that debit should be for the exact amount and debit of the past period, though may be excess, cannot be used for this purpose. I find that this observation of the appellate authority is hyper technical in nature which tends to defeat the substantive rights of the appellant to claim refund. Further I find that the appellant has debited the refund amount in cenvat ledger account as is clearly reflected by the document placed at page 171 of the appeal paper book but both the authorities convenie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 21,51,584/- at the time of filing the refund application for the subject period and erroneously concluded that the amount lying in balance is only ₹ 2,42,312/-. In view of my discussion, I hold that the appellant is entitled for refund of unutilised cenvat credit. 7.1. As far as claim of interest on delay in refund is concerned, I find that as per the decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra), appellant is also entitled for grant of interest on delayed refund claim beyond the period of three months. It is pertinent to note that the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) has held as under: 9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. . . 15. In view of the above analysis, our 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. 7.2. Further, Kerala High Court in the case of Xerox Business Services Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
