TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2691/2011-SM - - - Dated:- 27-3-2016 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Syd Peeran, Adv For the Appellant Mr. Mohammad Yusuf, A.R For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appellant s appeal and upheld the order-in-original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant debited duty of ₹ 26,55,354/- under protest under RG-23A Part-II during the period August 1995 and also for the period 22.01.1996 to 7.11.1996 against the demand on the issue of non-inclusion of dealers discount in assessabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 23,79,031/- vide order-in-original dated 13.10.2009. However, the Assistant Commissioner has not sanctioned the amount of interest arising on account of delay of sanction of refund claim. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for refund of interest and the appellate authority vide impugned order rejected the appeal of the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund of interest on the ground that the refund claim on 14.7.2009 arises as a consequence of CESTAT order No. 333/2009 dated 5.3.2009 and as such in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the relevant date for submission of refund claim shall be the date of order of CESTAT i.e. 5.3.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was crystallized by the Tribunal vide its Final order dated 17.4.2009. He further submitted that the right to claim refund arises only after the order of the Tribunal and from the date of the decision of the Tribunal, the refund was sanctioned within the stipulated time as provided in Section 11B. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd cite supra has categorically held that the appellant is entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date of filing the refund application till the refund is finally sanctioned. Here it is pertinent to reproduce para 14 15 from the decision of the apex court which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said Section, it is clear, that interest would be payable if the amount is not refunded within three months from the date of the application. The rate of interest would vary from 5% to 30% per annum, as may be fixed by the Central Government by Notification from time to time. Explanation immediately after the proviso in the said Section only means that the liability to pay the amount would arise after the order of refund of the amount is finalized, either in appeal or by the Commissioner, Tribunal or the Court, but such liability would be from three months after the date of application. The same cannot be interpreted that the liability to pay interest would be from the date of the order of the Tribunal or the Court, which may be passed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
