9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest along with the sanctioned refund claim - The ground as taken by the Commissioner (Appeals), for rejecting the sanctioning of interest is observed to be highly irrational as pursuant to the Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2018 there had been a written request of appellant dated 23.04.2018 praying for sanction of interest. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No.52350 of 2019 [SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 51700/2021 - Dated:- 3-8-2021 - MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Suhrid Bhatnagar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Pradeep Gupta, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.200/2019 dated 24.06.2019. Relevant factual matrix is as follows:- The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TOTAL 3,84,92,710 2,25,52,064/- 1,59,40,646/- -DO- 2. The sanctioned refund was claimed vide the application of 16.11.2017 was sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No.52/2017 dated 24 January, 2018 with respect to the refund claim of ₹ 1,59,40,646/. The appellant vide letter dated 23.04.2018 requested for sanction of interest on the said amount. However, vide letter No. 3458 dated 8.5.2018 the sanction of interest on the aforesaid amount was denied on the ground of refund has being sanctioned within 3 months of the date of refund application. The appeal, thereof has been rejected vide the order under challenge. Still ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2016 on account of closure of the Unit is during the month of September, 2015 and October, 2015 were filed in 2015 and 2016 (the dates already referred in table above) for a total amount of ₹ 3,84,92,710/- out of the said amount claim of ₹ 1,59,40,646/- was rejected by Original Authority, however, without interest. No doubt, post said decision there was another application seeking said refund as was filed on 16.11.2017. In view of this admitted fact, the moot controversy to adjudicate is as to whether 16.11.2017 is the date under section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 or the respective dates of the applications filed in 2015-16, as far as liability of Department to give interest is concerned. The interest liability accrues a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section. 7. The bare perusal makes it clear that the period of 3 months has to reckon from the date of receipt of application to be submitted under Section 11B of the Act. The explanation clarifies that even any subsequent order finally allows the refund has to be taken as the order under section 11B itself i.e. the order as has been passed pursuant to the first application of the assessee vide which he claimed the refund for the first time. Issue is no more res-integra as has been held by Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of J.K . Cement Works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise, Division-I, Ghaziabad to also pay interest from 26th November, 1999 to 16th November, 2000 at the rate specified under Section 11BB of the Act. 9. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in the case of C.C.E., Pune-III vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 498 (Bom.) while interpreting Sections 11b and 11BB of the said Act held as follows:- Perusal of the above provision shows that Section 11BB of the Act comes into operation only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. It lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable then if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under Section 11B of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for respondent also relied in support of his submission on the judgments of various High Courts. However, in our opinion, the position of law is absolutely clear that the interest is payable under Section 11BB of the Act on expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of the application and that Explanation appearing below Section 11BB of the Act does not have any effect or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable. The only purpose served by the explanation, as observed above, is to introduce a deeming fiction which is relevant for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. 10. Recently in the case of Ram Pratap vs. Union of India reported in 2017 (350) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
