9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Refund claim, Show Cause Notice was issued, and after due process the Adjudicating authority has sanctioned refund of Rs. 10,26,92,605/, wherein the request of interest was denied. There are no further appeal was filed against OIA dated 02.12.2020 by the Revenue. Therefore, it is not coming out anywhere that the Revenue was aggrieved by the OIA dated 02.12.2020. This being so, the Adjudicating authority was precluded from initiating any further proceedings so as to re-quantify the initial refund claim of Rs. 10,90,40,506/- whereas he has done so, solely on the basis that a fresh refund claim has been filed subsequent to the OIA dated 02.12.2020, which is factually incorrect. There are no legal sanctity in issuing the SCN on this ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest to the appellant. For rejecting their request for payment of interest, he has held that the refund claim has been filed on 02.07.2021 and the refund has been sanctioned within 3 months on 30.09.2021 and hence this does not call for any interest payment. 2. Being aggrieved by rejection of a portion of the refund claim as also on account of non-payment of interest, the appellants, filed their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 028-23-24(APP1) dated 28.05.2023 (the impugned Order). He has dismissed their request of interest on refund, but has not given any specific reason except for noting that their claim for interest is far fetched and not tenable . Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Revenue relies on the findings of the Lower Authorities and justifies the stand taken by the Department that interest is required to be paid only from the date of the Order passed by the appellate authority. In the present case, the appellant has filed their refund claim on 02.07.2021 much after the OIA was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 02.12.2020. Therefore, he justifies the stand taken by the Lower Authorities. 5. Heard both sides and perused the documents and the case laws cited before me. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the appellant has filed refund claim initially on 17.07.2018 for Rs. 10,90,40,506/-. The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating authority. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no cavil that the petitioner would be entitled to the interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Excise Act from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of an application for refund. However, the Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider that the petitioner had filed its applications of refund on 28.03.2013, 31.03.2014 and 30.06.2014 for the tax periods April-June 2012, April-June-2013 and July-September 2013 respectively. And the interest payable to the petitioner is required to be calculated from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the dates on which those applications were made. 16. In view of the above, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to forthwith process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
