New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1393 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 1393 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 477 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Claim interest on delayed refund - refund amount is in the nature of duty or not - Held that:- Though the appellant made the payment of the impugned amount at the time of investigation, the said payment was confirmed as duty vide order dated 1-5-1996 and the said payment was appropriated towards duty demand. Therefore there is no doubt on the pint that what has been paid by the appellant has been adjusted towards duty a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories cited [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Voltas (2004 (9) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY) would apply to the facts of the case. However, since Section 27A of the Customs Act itself came into force only in May, 1995 and the appellant has claimed the interest for the period from 1-12-1995 onwards, we are of the view that the appellant is rightly entitled for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. Vide the impugned order the ld. appellate authority dismissed the applicant's claim for interest on delayed refund of ₹ 30,53,905/- sanctioned to them vide order dated 27.8.2012 by the adjudicating authority. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant imported consignments of citric acid and cleared the same under DEEC licence claiming the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 vide bills .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o dismissed their appeal. The appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order No. A/427/WZB/2007/CSTB/C-I, dated 26-7-2007 [2007 (220) E.L.T. 160 (Tribunal)] allowed their appeal. After the receipt of the order, the appellant filed refund application for refund of duty as well as interest. The original authority vide order dated 23-12-2008 allowed the refund of duty for ₹ 30,53,905/- but did not grant the refund of interest. The appellant preferred an appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atever they paid at the time of investigation was appropriated towards such duty. Further, the lower adjudicating authority while passing the refund order in December 2008 vide Order No. ACAO/268/P.K./AC/2008-Gr.VII.B, dated 28-12-2008 has also considered the issue of unjust enrichment before the refund was sanctioned and therefore, what has been paid by them in 1994 is nothing but payment of duty and not a pre-deposit as held by the lower appellate authority. He further submits that they had fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rovided for under Section 27A of the Customs Act. The ld. counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories v. UOI [2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that interest on delayed refund is payable under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application under Section 11B and not from the date of order of refund or appellate order allowing such refund. He argued that the same principl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that what has been paid by the assessee was only a deposit and not duty and therefore the appellant is not entitled to interest under Section 27A. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case from the records of the case, it is seen that though the appellant made the payment of the impugned amount at the time of investigation, the said payment was confirmed as duty vide order dated 1-5-1996 and the said payment was appropriated towards duty demand. Therefore there i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version