TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e first time on 24.4.2006 with a request to revise the earlier refund claim of ₹ 6,13,406/- to ₹ 9,76,135/- - Held that: - merely because the refund claim of ₹ 6,13,406/- had been pending beyond three months, it cannot provide a right to the appellant to revise the claim antedated by including additional amount of ₹ 3,62,729/-, which was not because of any arithmetical error in calculation but arose on account of separate payments earlier i.e. between July 2004 and January 2005 - the authorities below had rightly held that the additional amount of ₹ 3,62,739/- claimed through letter 24.4.2006 could not be considered as the claim filed on 11.7.2005 and rejected the same claim on the ground of limitation. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g hit by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The Ld Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not considering their submission that interest was payable for the delayed period of refund of ₹ 6,13,406/-, as the amount was refunded three months after the date of filing of the refund claim. Also, he has submitted that the refund amount of ₹ 3,62,729/-, has been wrongly rejected as barred by limitation. It is his contention that it is an amendment to the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,406/-, accordingly, the authorities below, had rightly held that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. 6. I find that the appellant had claimed refund of ₹ 6,13,406/- on 11.7.2005 enclosing all relevant documents with refund application in support of their claim. The said refund claim was admittedly not sanctioned within three months from the date it was filed, but sanctioned on 30.01.2008. The relevant provision governing payment interest on delayed refund prescribed at Section 11BB of CEA,1944, reads as follows : [11BB. Interest on delayed refunds.-If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est is payable after expiry of three months from the date of filing of the refund claim. Therefore, the appellants are eligible to interest on ₹ 6,13,406/- on expiry of three months from the date of filing of the refund claim till the same was paid to them. 8. Regarding the amount of ₹ 3,62,729/-, I find that the same was claimed for the first time on 24.4.2006 with a request to revise the earlier refund claim of ₹ 6,13,406/- to ₹ 9,76,135/-. In their reply to the show cause notice dt 29.10.2007 at para 20, it is specifically requested by the appellant that the refund claim has been revised by including the additional amount of ₹ 3,62,729/-. I find that The Appellant are claiming on one hand interest under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
