TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable 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 the proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an appellate authority or the court, then for the purpose of this section the order made by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No.BHO-EXCUS-000-APP-021-18-19 dated 24.04.2018 has been assailed in the impugned appeal vide which the order of original adjudicating authority rejecting the claim of interest to the refund allowed to the appellant has been rejected. Being aggrieved, the impugned appeal has been filed. 2. Facts relevant for the purpose are that M/s.Hindustan Motors, the appellant had filed a refund claim of ₹ 3,00,78,856/- initially on 05.02.2005 towards customs duty paid, under protest, in respect of bills of entry for import of diesel/petrol engine for motor cars classifying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant denying his entitlement for the claim of the interest. Said proposal has been confirmed not only by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide order No.192/2017-18 dated 27.12.2018, but has been upheld vide the Order-in-Appeal under challenge giving rise to the impugned appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Manish Saharan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Sunil Kumar, learned D.R. for the Department. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the issue involved herein is no more res-integra as it stands settled by Hon ble Apex Court itself in the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 (S.C.). It is submitted that despite this decision was brought to the notice of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below the proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an appellate authority or the court, then for the purpose of this section the order made by such higher appellate authority or by the court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on expiry of a period of thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he only question is the period for which petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of refund. Petitioner submits that interest is liable to be paid from expiry of 90 days from the date of application under Section 27(1), which in this case is 23.07.2007, is well founded. A plain reading of Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 supports his submission that the word applications throughout Section 27A refers to the application for refund under Section 27(1). There is no other application contemplated therein. Section 27A then provides for the payment of interest from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application . The words such application refer to the application under Section 27(1). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be for such application, as was filed under section 11B of Central Excise Act. 8. Applying these case laws to the present case, we observe that the refund claim was initially filed on 05.02.2005 in furtherance of sanction vide the order of original adjudicating authority dated 28.03.2000. The sanctioning of refund got confirmed even vide the order of Hon ble Apex Court. As already discussed above, date of application relevant for section 11BB shall be the date on which the application under section 11B of CEA was filed. In the present case, the application for refund under Section 11B of CEA was filed on 05.02.2005. The final order of CESTAT dated 01.08.2017 has reverted the situation back to the date of application dated 05.02.2005. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
