TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant have conceded their claim of interest for the period prior to 30.5.2001. We have held that the refund claim is governed by section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as discussed hereinabove, in that circumstances, the appellant is entitled for interest on delayed refund after three months from the date i.e. 30.5.2001 when the claim of refund has attained finality till the refund claim was given to the appellant. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 400 of 2005 - FINAL ORDER NO. 52806 /2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 3-9-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 31.3.2003, both the show cause notices were adjudicated and it was held that refund has passed the bar of unjust enrichment, therefore, appellant is entitled for refund but claim of interest was rejected. Thereafter on 7.4.2003, the refund was given to the appellant without interest. The appellant challenged the order of rejecting the claim of interest of the appellant before learned Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 23.12.2004 also rejected the claim of appellant for interest. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as the assessments were finalized on 7.7.98, the appellant was not required to file applications for refund. Infact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai [2001 (136) ELT 867 (Tri-Mumbai)] which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court as reported in [2002 (143) ELT A266 (SC)] to say that provision of Section 11A or 11B of Central Excise Act are not attracted as refund resulted from finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. The facts of the case are not in dispute as the adjudicating authority finalized the provisional assessment on 7.7.1998 and appellant has filed refund claim under section 11B of the Act on 11.8.1998. The order of adjudicating authority dated 7.7.1998 was chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be . Any recoveries or refunds consequent upon the adjustment under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B will not be governed by Section 11A or Section 11B, as the case may be. However, if the final orders passed under sub-rule (5) are appealed against - or questioned in a writ petition or suit, as the case may be, assuming that such a writ or suit is entertained and is allowed/decreed - then any refund claim arising as a consequence of the decision in such appeal or such other proceedings, as the case may be, would be governed by Section 11B. It is also made clear that if an independent refund claim is filed after the final decision under Rule 9B(5) re-agitating the issues already deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
