TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prakash Shah and Pritesh Rajgor for the Petitioner. Pradeep S. Jetly and J.B. Mishra for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against an order dated 18-3-2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Division III, in so far as interest has been disallowed to the Petitioners on a claim for refund. The grievance of the Petitioners is that this is contrary to the express terms of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-10- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Service Tax on 13-7-2006. Together with the application the Petitioners inter alia submitted a certificate from the Chartered Accountant certifying that the amount of Rs. 1.02 crores in relation to which refund was claimed had been paid and that the incidence of such tax had not been passed on. By a notice to show cause dated 11-10-2006 the Petitioners were called upon to explain as to why the refund claim should not be rejected on the ground that they had failed to establish that the incidence of service tax had not been passed on by them. The Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 24-4-2007 rejected the refund claim of the Petitioners holding that the Petitioners had not furnished any documentary or concrete evidence as requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the matter was extended on 7-3-2011, 8-3-2011, 11-3-2011 or finally on 14-3-2011. I find that the assessee has submitted the documents on 22-10-2010 and chose to attend the personal hearing on 14-3-2011, during which they submitted the relevant documents like Profit and Loss Account, Chartered Accountants Certificate which are specified by Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the applicability of the refund claim. Hence, the sanction of the claim is after extending natural justice and within time. Therefore the interest is not payable. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that once the claim for refund has been allowed, the entitlement of the Petitioners to interest under section 11BB as applicable to service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a matter of fact, the Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the proceedings had by an order dated 15-10-2010 directed the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim along with interest under section 11BB . Section 11BB postulates that if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of that section, the applicant shall be paid interest at the rate stipulated on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application till the date of refund of such duty. The entitlement of the applicant, once the requisite conditions have been fulfille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
