9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund of Rs.7,17,339/- claimed by the appellant with consequential benefits and set aside the OIO Sl.No.01/2014 dated 26.09.2014 to that extent only, the appellant's claim for payment of interest on the refund amount so allowed, was rejected. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant had originally preferred a refund claim dated 02.07.2008, claiming refund of Cenvat credit of Rs.10,68,522/-. The claim was preferred under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004. A Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2008 was issued proposing to reject refund claim, to which, the appellant filed its reply vide letter dated 10.11.2008. Thereafter, the department issued another Show Cause Notice No.10/2009 (JC) dated 09.04.2009 proposing to disallow Rs.8,23,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Rs.10,68,522/-, and after acknowledging that as an outcome of the denovo proceedings the refund amount claimed now stood at Rs.7,17,339/-, nonetheless, rejected the refund claim by Order in Original No.1/2014 dated 26.09.2014 holding that the appellant failed to fulfil the conditions as stipulated in notification No.05/2006-CE (N.T) dated 14.03.2006 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Aggrieved by the said Order in Original the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals - I). The Appellate Authority, vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.CMB-CEX-000-APP-039-15, dated 06.02.2015, finding that the appellant had restricted their claim to an amount of Rs.7,17,339/-, held on merits that the appellant is eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority on the ground that an appeal has been preferred against the impugned OIA by the Department. He submits that the appeal of the Department was dismissed by Final order No.40863/2024 dated 15.07.2024 by this Tribunal on monetary grounds and even after eight months the refund amount itself has not been granted. As regards the entitlement of the appellant to interest, he submitted that the entitlement of the appellant to interest on delayed sanctioning of refund is settled by Supreme Court decisions in the appellant's favour, holding that in case of delayed refund interest is payable in terms of Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund claim. He placed relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its legitimate interests and the fact that the assessee has so litigated cannot per se be held against the assessee, or be a ground, to deny it's just dues. As per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the relevant date for payment of interest hinges only on the date of receipt of the application and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application, then the applicant shall be paid interest at the specified rates fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. 9. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and it is worthwhile to reproduce what the Honourable Supreme Court has held on this aspect in its Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable. (emphasis supplied) 10. The Apex Court thereafter went on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 604 (Bom), to cite a few. 12. In view of the discussions and findings above and in light of the ratio of the aforementioned decisions, we hold that the finding in the impugned OIA by the appellate authority that the appellant's claim for payment if interest is not justified, is decidedly untenable and is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 13. We hold that the appellant is entitled to interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund by the Department. We direct the refund sanctioning authority to expedite the payment of refund amount due to the appellant, if not already done, as well as payment of applicable interest thereon, within thirty days from date of receipt of a cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
