TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I AND MR. UJJAL BHUYAN For The Petitoner : MR.R DUBEY, MR.S C KEYAL, ASSTT.S.G.I. This petition has been filed by the Union of India and three others for review of judgment and order dated 08-11-2012 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1166/2012. 2. WP(C) No. 1166/2012 was filed by the respondent as the writ petitioner. The said writ petition was heard alongwith another writ petition being WP(C) No.2325/2012. 3. Question for consideration before the writ Court was the entitlement of the writ petitioner to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the delayed excise duty refund by the department to the writ petitioner. 4. Writ petitioner (petitioner, hereinafter) is a company incorporated under the Compani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod from 08-07-1999 to 28-02-2003 amounting to ₹ 1,10,61,418.00. The claim was made in terms of the aforesaid notification dated 08-07-1999, as amended. 8. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh vide order dated 10-05-2005 held that the petitioner was eligible for exemption under notification dated 08-07-1999. Thereafter, the said authority vide order dated 05-08-2005 sanctioned refund of ₹ 77,52,409.00 in favour of the petitioner out of the claimed amount of ₹ 1,10,61,418.00. It was stated that the refund claim for the months of August, 1999, September, 1999, May, 2000, September, 2000, November, 2001 and December, 2001 involved amounts of over ₹ 5 lakhs, which required audit clearance. Thus, an amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 27-03-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Dibrugarh, an amount of ₹ 32,05,103.00 was sanctioned for refund to the petitioner. The said amount was paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 27-03-2012. On the claim of interest, respondents stated that nature of refund envisaged in the notification dated 08-07-1999 is qualitatively different from refund under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it was not on account of any excess payment of excise duty by the manufacturers but was designed to give effect to exemption. Consequently, it was contended that provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable in such cases. 15. After due consideration, the writ Court upheld the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds. 26. Thus, it is quite clear the once it is held that a manufacturer is entitled to exemption of excise duty in terms of the notification dated 08-07-1999, the excise duty paid shall be refunded to the manufacturer as per the schedule mentioned in the said notification. Even in case of likely delay, refund has to be made on provisional basis. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the admissible excise duty refund cannot be withheld by the central excise authority. 27. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deals with claim for refund of duty. It provides that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application with relevant documents and evidence for refund of such duty to the Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. -Vs- Union of India reported in (2011) 10 SCC 292, it is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. 30. In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid two provisions, referred to a circular dated 01-10-2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi wherein and whereby the Board stressed that the provisions of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that two Central Government circulars dated 19-12-2002 and 08-12-2006 have made it clear that provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable in case of exemption notification dated 08-07-1999. On the basis of the above two circulars it is contended that writ petitioner would not be entitled to interest on the delayed refund of excise duty. Though this argument was advanced before the writ Court, yet the writ Court came to an erroneous finding. Therefore such finding is required to be reviewed. 17. On due consideration, we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the review petitioners. The circulars dated 19-12-2002 and 08-12-2006 are executive in character. It cannot over-ride statutory provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
