Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (9) TMI 1674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssued a Deficiency Memo stating that the Chartered Accountant Certificate is not proper at the time of receipt of the refund application itself. After the matter has travelled up to the Tribunal, the Department cannot issue a fresh Deficiency Memo to put forward a further ground for denying the refund. The decision in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] applies to the present case, 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 refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te at the time of filing the refund claim originally and the very fact of doctrine of unjust enrichment was ruled out only after furnishing the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant on 12.04.2016. That the claim, therefore, had become complete only on 03.05.2016 when the Chartered Accountant Certificate was received by the Department. The claim having been processed within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of submission by the Chartered Accountant, the appellant is not eligible for interest as per Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the rejection of interest on delayed refund, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order impugned herein ordered to sanction interest on del .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no delay in granting the refund. 3.1 The Ld. Counsel Shri. Srinivas Kotni appeared and argued on behalf of the respondent. He submitted that the appellant had filed refund claims and along with such claims, had filed the certificate of Chartered Accountant. No Deficiency Memo was issued by the Department stating that the Chartered Accountant Certificate is not proper. In the original round of litigation, the refund was denied stating that it is time-barred. The matter reached the Tribunal who set aside this ground and remanded the matter to consider and sanction the refund claim. Thereupon, the Department issued a Deficiency Memo stating that the Chartered Accountant Certificate is improper. Thus, the Deficiency Memo has been issued much .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Customs Act, 1962 is wide enough to cover all kinds of Customs Duty, including those related to Customs Duty. That in para 17 of the said judgment it is stated that Section 3(8) of CTA makes it clear that the provisions of the Act, including those relating to the drawback refunds and exemptions shall so far as may be applied to the SAD chargeable under the CTA. That, therefore the provisions of Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act is applicable in case of refund of duty and interest for delayed refund. Since there has been a delay in sanctioning the refund, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly ordered to pay the interest for the delayed payment. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 The Department is aggrieved on the ground that the Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ceptable. If there was any deficiency in the documents, the Department ought to have issued a Deficiency Memo stating that the Chartered Accountant Certificate is not proper at the time of receipt of the refund application itself. After the matter has travelled up to the Tribunal, the Department cannot issue a fresh Deficiency Memo to put forward a further ground for denying the refund. 5.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) has analysed various case laws, especially the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra). We find that the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the case. We find no grounds to interfere with the decision passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The appeal filed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates