TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ichment. The unjust enrichment aspect relating to the said refund application dt.13.06.2005, after several rounds of litigation was resolved by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the Order-in-Appeal dt.22.02.2016. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the refund application was filed by appellant on 22.07.2016 basing on the Order-in- Appeal dt.22.02.2016. The position of law in this regard has been well settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] , wherein it was held that Sec.11BB of the Central Excise Act lays down that, in case any duty paid, is found refundable, and if the duty is not refunded within the period of 3 months from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 13.06.2005, with the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Rourkela Division, pursuant to the Order-in-Appeal No.162/BBSR-II/2004 dt.06.08.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that no duty is payable by the appellant on the quality control samples, used for testing purposes within the factory. The refund was sanctioned by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Rourkela, vide his OIO No.R-7/RKLII/ 2009 dt.21.07.2009, amounting to ₹ 16,13,588/-, but the amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, in terms of Sec.11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, on the ground that the refund would cause unjust enrichment to the appellant. After several rounds of litigation, the dispute regarding unjust enrichment was resolved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellant before this Tribunal. 3. The appeal was posted for hearing on 17.10.2019. Sri S. C. Mohanty, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Sri K. Chowdhary, A.R. appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 3.1 At the outset Sri Mohanty, the Ld. advocate for the appellant, submitted that the subject refund claim was originally filed before the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Rourkela-II Division on 13.06.2005, which was then under the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. Subsequently, a new Central Excise Commissionerate was formed at Rourkela. Therefore the respondent in the present appeal should be the Commissioner, GST, Central Excise Customs, Rourkela, instead of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals), ignoring the factual aspects and the ratio of decisions of the Hon ble supreme Court, passed the impugned order dt.20.02.2018, denying payment of interest to the appellant. 4. Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Respondent reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The crucial issue to be determined in the present appeal is, what is the actual date of filing of the refund application by the appellant, for the purpose of Sec.11BB of the Central Excise Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide para 2 of his impugned Order-in-Appeal dt.20.02.2018, has stated that the appellant filed the refund application on 22.07.2016, based on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention of the appellant is not sustainable and the interest claimed by the appellant is also not maintainable in the instant case. 7. From the available records and the detailed date chart furnished by the appellant at page 8 11 of the appeal paper book, I find that the refund application was filed by the appellant on 13.06.2005. The said refund application was decided by the Asst. Commissioner, vide his order dt.21.06.2009, as stated under para 2 of the impugned order dt.20.02.2018, under which the refund was sanctioned but was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The unjust enrichment aspect relating to the said refund application dt.13.06.2005, after several rounds of litigation was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defects, if any, in refund application, ought to have been communicated within 48 hours as stipulated in CBEC Circular dt.30.05.1995. If there is any deficiencies and defects in the refund application, it is obligatory on the part of the Revenue to inform the assesse within two days of receipt. 8. In view of the above settled position of law, I am inclined to hold that the refund application was filed by the appellant on 13.06.2005 and the refund was finally paid on 15.09.2016, and in terms of Sec.11BB of the Central Excise Act, the appellant is entitled to the interest, at the rate as notified by the Central Government. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with consequential relief to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
