Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (8) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d applications after passing of the Tribunal s order since originally the refund claim itself was under challenge before the refund sanctioning authority. The Appellants are entitled to interest after 3(three) months from the date of filing of the original refund claim till the sanction of the refund amount - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos.75434, 75435, 75436 & 75437 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75373-75376/2022 - Dated:- 17-6-2022 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent (s) ORDER The present appeals have been filed by the respective Appellants challenging the less .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le Gauhati High Court and set aside by the Hon ble High Court in C .Ex. Appeal No.11/2016. Following the judgment of Hon ble High Court, this Tribunal vide a common Final Order No.77290-93/2018 dated 10.08.2018 allowed the Appeals. 5. The respective Appellants approached the department for implementation of the Tribunal s order. Nothing happened for a substantial period and in the meantime, the Hon ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 06.12.2019 in civil Appeal No.9237 of 2019 upheld the amendment to the notification whereby the quantum of refund claim was reduced. 6. That thereafter the original authority vide order dated 15.04.2020 sanctioned the refund to the respective Appellant on proportionate basis as mentioned in para 9 o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He also submitted that the said order of the Tribunal was accepted by the department on 25.10.2019 much before passing of the judgment on 06.12.2019 but still the department delayed in issuing the refund amount. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. VVF Ltd. reported in 2020(372)ELT495(SC), wherein upholding the validity of relevant notifications, Hon ble Supreme Court in para 16 of its judgment held as under: 16 . Under the circumstances, the respective High Courts have committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned before the respective High Courts on the ground that they are hit by the doctrine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... als stand disposed of accordingly. NO COSTS. It is submitted that in terms of Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment, only the pending refund applications were to be decided as per the amended notifications. However, in the present case, the refund application could not be considered as pending as the refund application rejected by the original authority was set aside and the Appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. Had the department acted upon the decision of Tribunal, the Appellant would have got the amount long back and it was only the department which delayed in refunding the amount. In other words, when no refund application was pending with the department, refunding of amount on proportionate basis was contrary to the decision of the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent is directed to refund the amount, as claimed in the original refund application filed by the respective Appellants. As regards interest, I find that it is not the case here that the Appellants sought refund and/or filed refund applications after passing of the Tribunal s order since originally the refund claim itself was under challenge before the refund sanctioning authority. I find that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), which has been followed by the Hon ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra) and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lekhraj Narinder Kumar (supra). On facts as stated above and under the circumstanc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates