Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 374 - CESTAT CHENNAIInterest for delayed payment of refund of duty - Refund u/s 11B - Held that:- Section 11B does not make any distinction with regard to duty charged as per Section 3 of the act or Section 3A of the Act. Rule 96ZQ only provide the machinery provisions to decide whether duty liability was discharged correctly. In the case of levy under Section 3 refund can arise due to notifications issued under Section 5A of the Act and if excess payments arise refund has to be granted to subject to provisions of Section 11B - papers filed with Deputy Commissioner, Erode in pursuance of the sanction order dated 26-3-2009 issued by the Commissioner was the application as envisaged in Section 11B for refund of duty. All along the stand of the department has been that the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Erode was not the competent authority to sanction the rebate amount but the competent authority was the Commissioner. The applicants had filed the claim before the Commissioner on 29-3-2000 and 27-1-2000 itself and those applications have been sanctioned by the Commissioner, albeit with delay. So those applications are to be treated as applications for refund and not the papers sent to Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode for getting the money consequent to the sanction order issued by the Commissioner - appellant is eligible for interest as claimed, subject to verification of calculation of quantum of interest with regard to applicable rates but accepting the date of filing of claim as 29-3-2000 and 27-1-2000 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|