9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the case are that on 20.10.2011, the appellant filed the refund application before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, claiming refund of excess amount of duty paid in the month of February, 2011. The refund application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order-in-original dated 30.01.2012 on the ground that the calculation sheet, computing the refund amount has not been enclosed to the refund application and that no proof has been produced to substantiate that the incidence of excess paid duty has not been transferred to the buyer of goods. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 22.05.2012, allowed the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn and the copy of PLA desired by the Department vide letter dated 11.07.2012, were all available with the Department and, therefore, it cannot be said that through said documents, the Department gathered some additional/new information which were not available at the time of filing the refund application. With regard to filing of affidavit at a later date that the incidence of duty burden has not been passed on to the buyer of the goods, the submissions of the ld. Counsel is that the unjust enrichment aspect has been dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22.05.2012, holding that the excess /double payment of duty has not been recovered from the customers. To justify his stand that the appellant is entitled for intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund sanctioning authority, stating that the refund claim is admissible to the appellant. Since, genuineness of such report of the Range Officer has not been questioned by the ld. DR for Revenue; I am of the firm view that the date of filing the refund application by the appellant on 20.10.2011 should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination / computation of the interest liability. Therefore, in view of the fact that the refund application filed by the appellant on 20.10.2011 was ultimately entertained and sanctioned by the original authority on 31.08.2012, which is beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, in my opinion, the appellant should be entitled for interest f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
