TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22/- has been refunded within 3 months of the said order. Question of levy of any interest does not at all arise. Otherwise also the said amount was adjusted against the liability of paying interest. Seen from this angle also there arises no question of levy of interest on interest. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Thermoplastics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Commission of Customs, Kolkata [2003 (12) TMI 84 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date of final order passed by the Tribunal and if the amount is refunded within 3 months of the order of Tribunal, the same will be in consonance with the principle as contained under Section 11BB of CEA, 1944. The Adjudicating Authorities bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. It is against the said interest that the amount of ₹ 1,66,322/- was ordered to be adjusted. However, against the order dated 07.07.2004, an appeal was preferred in which the demand was upheld vide order dated 19.12.2005 except that penalty was reduced to ₹ 5,000/- from ₹ 10,000/-. 1.2 Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before CESTAT. This Tribunal vide order dated 19.07.2006 granted stay and waiver of penalty inasmuch as the duty amount was already deposited. However pending final hearing before this Tribunal, the interest of said ₹ 1,66,322/- was ordered to be adjusted against the amount of ₹ 2,30,525/- from the sanctioned refund of ₹ 2,40,000/-. Vide the final order dated 01.10.2015 the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The denial of the interest claim is therefore, erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following case laws:- 1. Prem Products v. CCE, Agra, 2017 (9) TMI 1541-CESTAT, Allahabad. 2. Munch Food Products Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-I, 2016 (337) ELT 428 (Tri.-Delhi). 3. Ronald Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE ST, Vadodara-I, - 2014 (310) ELT 777 (Tri. Admd.) 4. International Paper APPM Ltd. v. CCE, C ST, Vishakhapatnam-I, 2017 (2) TMI 617 CESTAT Hyderabad. 5. Indu Nissan Oxo Chem Industries v. CCE ST, Vadodara-I 2016 (II) TMI 1222- CESTAT, Ahmadabad. 6. CC, Airport ACC, Bangalore v. Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd., - 2015 (324) ELT 259 (Kar.) 7. C.C. (Airport Administration), Kolkata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g order or from the date of doing away the liability qua which the said amount was adjusted. There is no dispute to the legislative intent that whatever amount is sanctioned, the refund thereof has to be made within 3 months. Section 11B (2) is relevant, which reads as follows:- Section 11B (2) (2) If, on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund : Provided that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion of the Central Government the incidence of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has not been passed on by the persons concerned to any other person. 6. This provision makes it clear that it is not the whole, but the part of the claim can be held refundable. Section 11BB reads as follows:- Section 11BB. Interest on delayed refunds. --- If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub- section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of this Tribunal, Explanation B (ec) to sub-clause (5) of 11 B requires reliance, which reads as follows:- Explanation (B) (ec) to sub-clause (5) of Section 11 B of Excise Act (ec) in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; 8. Thus, the period of 3 months under Section 11BB has to reckon from the decision of Tribunal doing way the liability against which part of sanctioned refund was adjusted. Admittedly, the said adjusted amount of ₹ 1,66,322/- has been refunded within 3 months of the said order. Question of levy of any interest does not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
