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

Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S. Tax, Anand

2017 (11) TMI 937 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Interest on delayed refund - Section 11BB of CEA, 1944 - Held that: - the issue of allowing interest under Section 11BB of CEA, 1944 on delayed refund is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India], where it was held that liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the Respondent ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This Appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.VAD-EXCUS-ANAND-APP-63/2015-16 dated 29.4.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vadodara. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant filed two refund claims on 27.10.1998 and 01.10.1999 claiming refunds of duty paid under protest during the period August, 1996 to December 1998. Show cause notices were issued on 27 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

grounds of unjust enrichment; later, allowing ROM application directed vide its order dated 16.4.2007 to consider the claims also on merit. In de novo proceeding, the adjudicating authority rejected their refund claims both on merit as well as on unjust enrichment. On Appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed Appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order No.A/11521/2014 dated 22.8.14 d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian for the Appellant submits that refund claims though filed on 27.10.98 for ₹ 41,16,535/- and on 01.10.99 for ₹ 3,06,887/-, therefore, they are entitled to interest three months after expiry of the refund claims in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI 2012 (27) STR 193 (SC). 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I find that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not mad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

earlier stand on the applicability of Section 11BB of the Act. Significantly, the Board has stressed that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act are attracted automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. The Circular reads thus : Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX, dated 1-10-2002 F. No. 268/51/2002-CX.8 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject : Non-payment of interest in refund/rebate cases .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eyond a period of three months has not been granted by Central Excise formations. On perusal of the reports received from field formations on such representations, it has been observed that in majority of the cases, no reason is cited. Wherever reasons are given, these are found to be very vague and unconvincing. In one case of consequential refund, the jurisdictional Central Excise officers had taken the view that since the Tribunal had in its order not directed for payment of interest, no inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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