TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMISSIONER (AR) FOR THE RESPONDENT ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.5.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Order-in-Original and declined to grant interest on delay in refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD). 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants had imported various types of cooking coal and steam coal classified under CTH 2701 1910 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 through New Mangalore Port under 12 Bills of Entry. The import was permitted under provisional assessment pending investigation and determination of the value of imported goods from related person. The appellant had paid customs duty as assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the EDD should be discontinued and the concerned DC/AC will be held responsible in delay in finalization. The Commissioner (A) in his order has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Persistent Systems Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (43) STR 117 (Tri.-Mum.). The Commissioner (A) has also observed in para 11 of the said order that DRI cannot stay or obstruct the operation of the proceedings relating to SVB, which has reached its finality and DRI may enforce the results of its investigations under separate proceedings as provided. Finally, the Commissioner has held that the appellant is eligible for refund of 1% EDD subject to verification of documents and satisfaction of factum of unjust enrichment. Thereafter, ACC, Mangalore vide Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. He further submitted that after the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 9.9.2015 accepting the transaction value and thereby, rendering 1% EDD as refundable, the appellant filed refund claim along with following documents. (i) Copies of Bills of Entry mentioned in the Table at para 2 above. (ii) Copies of TR-6 Challans pertaining to the said Bills of Entry in proof of having paid the EDD. (iii) Copy of SVB Order dated 9.9.2015 passed by the ADC, GATT Cell and Mumbai. (iv) Cost Accountant Certificate for unjust enrichment. (v) Worksheet showing Bills of Entry wise EDD paid. (vi) Copy of relevant pages of Balance Sheet as at 31.3.2015 Ledger Account Extracts. (vii) Brief Grounds of refund claim. 4.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of the application for refund till the date of refund of the amount. The obligation to pay interest is not affected even if certain documents are submitted later because Section 27A mandates payment of interest from the date of submission of application for refund. It is obligatory on the part of the Revenue to intimate the assesse to remove the deficiencies in the application for refund within two days. 4.3 He further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal/High Court and Supreme Court consistently. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI: 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the period for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 11BB of the Act is concerned, emphasis has been laid on the date of receipt of application for refund. In that case, having noted that application by the assessee requesting for refund, was filed before the Assistant Commissioner on 12th January 2004, the Court directed payment of Statutory interest under the said Section from 12th April 2004 i.e. after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. Thus, the said decision is of no avail to the revenue. 15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
