9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bate of duty was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and was subsequently allowed in appeal which was affirmed in further appeal before the Joint Secretary, Government of India it was held that It is manifest from the aforeextracted provisions that Section 11-BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11-B of the Act. Section 11-BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11-B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The above judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy has been subsequently followed in the case of MANISHA PHARMO PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2020 (11) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT] . Following the above judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that interest on refund in terms of Section 11 BB of the Act would accrue in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting refund of a sum of Rs. 43,94,963/- for the period 17.05.1994 to 23.06.1994. 2.2. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals which rejected the petitioner s claim for refund of Rs. 66,68,656/- for the period 01.03.1994 to 16.05.1994 vide order dated 27.05.1996. The matter was carried by way of appeal before the CESTAT wherein refund of Rs. 66,68,656/- for the period 01.03.1994 to 16.05.1994 was granted vide order dated 27.04.2005. The revenue carried the matter by way of appeal before this Court in CMA No.4057 of 2005. This Court was pleased to affirm the order of the CESTAT vide order dated 18.06.2019. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was granted refund on 20.02.2020 by the revenue for the period 01.03.1994 to 16.05.1994 of Rs. 66,68,656/-. 2.3. Against the above background the question that arises for consideration is whether the interest would start accruing 3 months from the date of application of refund i.e., 16.11.1994 until the refund was paid on 20.02.2020 in terms of Section 11BB of the Act (or) from the date of the order of this Court in C.M.A.No.4057 of 2005 dated 18.06.2019. The revenue rejected the claim for interest by pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 10 SCC 292 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1420 at page 296 12. It is manifest from the aforeextracted provisions that Section 11-BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11-B of the Act. Section 11-BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11-B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below the proviso to Section 11-BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an appellate authority or the court, then for the purpose of this section the order made by such higher appellate authority or by the court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11-B of the Act. It is clear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest due to them on sanction of refund/rebate claims beyond a period of three months has not been granted by Central excise formations. On perusal of the reports received from field formations on such representations, it has been observed that in majority of the cases, no reason is cited. Wherever reasons are given, these are found to be very vague and unconvincing. In one case of consequential refund, the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers had taken the view that since the Tribunal had in its order not directed for payment of interest, no interest needs to be paid. 2. In this connection, the Board would like to stress that the provisions of Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. The jurisdictional Central Excise Officers are not required to wait for instructions from any superior officers or to look for instructions in the orders of the higher appellate authority for grant of interest. Simultaneously, the Board would like to draw attention to Circular No. 398/31/98-CX, dated 2-6-1998 [(1998) 100 ELT T-16] wherein the Board has directed that responsibility should be fixed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
