Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax, Silvassa Versus Sterlite Industries Ltd.

2017 (8) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Entitlement of interest - delayed grant of refund - Held that: - There was delay in sanctioning the refund claim from three months after 27 September 2004 to 9 March 2006. The entitlement of interest, therefore, decided and by the impugned order the Respondent's Appeal was allowed. - The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Hamdard (WAQF) Laboratories [2016 (3) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT], while dealing with the interest of delayed refund is payable under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Dated:- 4-8-2017 - Anoop V. Mohta And And Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Appellant Mr. Vishal Agrawal a/w Ms. Isha Shah, Mr. P.k. Shetty i/by P.K. Shetty for the Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J. ) This is a State/Revenue Appeal, filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (for short, the Excise Act ). The Challenge is made, by raising following proposed substantial question of law- Whether interest is payable to the Respondent for the period .....

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 Appellate Tribunal ), in favour of the Respondent, preferred this Appeal. The issue in the Appeal is regarding payment of interest for delay in sanctioning of the Respondent's refund claims. 3 Both the learned counsel for the parties read and referred the facts and the provisions of law specifically, Section 11BB of the Excise Act and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short, the Rules ). The Judgments are also cited by the parties. 4 Admittedly, the refund application was filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

but the refund application was not decided and/or returned, including the claim of the Respondent. There is nothing to show that for want of documents and/or otherwise, the said application was rejected. There was delay in sanctioning the refund claim from three months after 27 September 2004 to 9 March 2006. The entitlement of interest, therefore, decided and by the impugned order the Respondent's Appeal was allowed. 5 The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Hamdard (WAQF) Laboratories 201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion and reject the application for refund. The adjudicatory process by no stretch of imagination can be carried on beyond three months. It is required to be concluded within three months. The decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited [2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (SC)] commends us and we respectfully concur with the same. 6 The Gujarat High Court, in the judgment of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 2010(259) E.L.T. 356 (Guj.) in para 11, observed as under: 11. There is a basic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version