9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of receipt of application under sub- section (1), there shall be paid to the applicant interest from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. The relevant date, therefore, is the date on which the application for refund is filed. The decisions in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-III VERSUS BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2008 (7) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] . M/S DABUR INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS [ 2016 (9) TMI 787 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] emphasise that though the order granting refund may have been passed on a subsequent date but interest has to be paid after the expiry of three months from the date of filing of applications for refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) committed an illegality in construing 29.01.2020 as the date of filing of the refund application whereas the dates of filing of the refund applications were 30.03.2017, 20.06.2017, 31.07.2017 and 28.08.2017. On 29.01.2020 the appellant had merely submitted an application for implementation of the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,917/-. This order was assailed by the Department before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 08.02.2019 set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for passing a reasoned order after hearing the parties. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 18.03.2019 allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. This order was assailed by the Department before the Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal No. 51221 of 2019 which appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 09.01.2020. 5. It is after the dismissal of the said appeal that the appellant wrote a letter dated 29.01.2020 to the Assistant Commissioner that the pending refund amount may be sanctioned at the earliest with the applicable interest. The Department sanctioned the refund claim by order dated 28.09.2021 but interest was not granted. The amount of refund was finally credited into the bank account of the appellant on 21/10/2021. The details are as follows:- S. No. Period of Refund Claim Date of Refund claim Date of Credit in Bank Account Amount Refunded (in Rupees) 1. July 2016 to September 2016 30.03.2017 21.10.2021 4,48,36,790 2. October 2016 to December 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, [not below five per cent] and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette], on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: PROVIDED that where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not re- funded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of refund of such duty. Explanation: Where any order of refund is made by the Commis- sioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal [,National Tax Tribunal] or any Court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, [or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise], under sub-section (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the directions passed a de-novo order dated 18.03.2019 rejecting the revenue appeal and allowed refund to CIPL, once again. 5. The revenue further aggrieved by the decisions of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) filed an afresh appeal in CESTAT. The Hon'ble CESTAT thereafter decided the issue finally on merits and dismissed the revenue appeal vide Final Order dated 09.01.2020. 6. In view above decisions, it is now settled that the services provided by CIPL qualified as export of services and fulfilled all conditions mentioned under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that the pending refund amount may please be sanctioned at the earliest occasion along with applicable interest, in terms of settled principles of judicial discipline." 14. The Commissioner (Appeals) has treated this application dated 29.01.2020 as the date of filing of the refund application and has, therefore, allowed interest to the appellant after the expiry of period of three months from this date. 15. As noticed above, the applications were actually filed by the appellant for refund of the amount on 30.03.2017, 20.06.2017, 31.07.2017 and 28.08.2017. Section 11BB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17. In Dabur India Ltd. the Allahabad High Court, after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories, observed as follows:- " 11. There is another aspect of matter. Application for refund was filed by petitioner on 8-3-2000. Under Section 11BB it is provided that if the authority is satisfied that an amount is to be refunded to assessee but the same has not been refunded within three months from the date of filing of application, assessee would be entitled for interest. Order passed by Revenue authority under Section 11B(2) for refund is not relevant for the purpose of attracting interest under Section 11BB but what is said that once refund is found admissible to assessee, if has not been refunded the amount within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1), he shall be paid interest. Meaning that there is no time limit prescribed for taking of a decision about refund but that law makes it very clear that amount if not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of the application, interest shall be payable. 12. In our view, even if an order has been passed much later on, for the purpose of interest it will relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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. Thus, we do not find that any question of law arises, and therefore; the appeal is rejected and it is disposed of. " (empha.sis supplied) 19. The aforesaid decisions emphasise that though the order granting refund may have been passed on a subsequent date but interest has to be paid after the expiry of three months from the date of filing of applications for refund. 20. The Commissioner (Appeals) committed an illegality in construing 29.01.2020 as the date of filing of the refund application whereas the dates of filing of the refund applications were 30.03.2017, 20.06.2017, 31.07.2017 and 28.08.2017. On 29.01.2020 the appellant had merely submitted an application for implementation of the order passed for refund of the amount claimed in the four applications. 21. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, modified to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
