TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture. The Departmental Officers initiated enquiry sometime in 1997 and were of the view that the appellants activity amounts to manufacture. On 26.07.1997 the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs on ad-hoc basis towards their duty liability. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for demand of duty of Rs. 17,56,355/- in respect of hydrogen gas cleared in retail cylinders and also for imposition of penalty on them. Since some stock of cylinders had been seized, the show cause notice also sought confiscation of the seized goods alongwith the the Truck from which the gas filled cylinders has been seized. The SCN was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 31.10.2002 by which he held that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 1997. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the amount of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs whose refund was sought, had been paid by the appellant during investigation, that subsequently, when point of dispute was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant s favour and this amount became refundable alongwith interest on the same should also be payable, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Chennai II vs. Ucal Fuel System Ltd. reported in 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.), also the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date of which the amount was paid and there is no provision for granting interest from this date, that in this regard he relies upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that interest on delayed refund is payable under section 11 BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the expiry of a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of refund application under section 11B (1) and not from the date of the order of refund or the appellate order allowing such refund and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. There is no dispute that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was filed only on 06.07.2004. In terms of Provisions of section 11B, even if, any refund arose in pursuance of an order-in-appeal passed by any appellate authority, the refund could not be granted suomotu. The claim in this regard is required to be filed by the assessee. The refund application was filed only on 06.07.2004. In terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the interest liability of the Department for delay in payment of refund under Section 11B arises, only when there is delay beyond 3 months from the date of filing of the refund application. Since in this case refund application had been made on 06.07.2004, the interest liability would start from 07.10.2004 till the refund was paid to the appellant. The Commissioner (App....