9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification dated 18.06.2012 and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. The aforesaid substantial question of law arises in view of the following facts:- The appellant claims to have cleared finished goods under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) without payment of excise duty in view of notification dated 17.03.2012. Since the appellant was not in a position to utilize Cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs in view of the fact that majority of the finished goods were cleared under ICB there was an accumulation of Cenvat credit. Accordingly on 17.04.2015 the appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short 'the said Rules') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal had recorded a finding that since the clearances made by the appellant under ICB were considered as exports this adjudication was challenged by the Revenue in the aforesaid appeal. It was held by this Court that the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was justified and the finding that the clearances made by the appellant under ICB could be treated as exports was upheld. This adjudication was relied upon by the appellant before the Tribunal in the present proceedings but the same was disregarded for no justifiable reason. It was not permissible for the Revenue to re-agitate the aforesaid issue when the same had been answered against it previously especially in proceedings pertaining to the appellant itself. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view that the substantial question of law as framed has to be answered in favour of the appellant. It is undisputed that for the period from January2014 to December-2014 the present appellant had claimed similar refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the said Rules on the ground that said credit remained unutilized due to clearances of the final products under ICB. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 17.06.2016 considered the judgment in the case of Shilpa Copper Wire Industries (supra) and held that in view of that decision, the clearances made by the appellant herein to ICB had to be considered as exports for being entitled to claim refund of Cenvat credit. The Revenue proceeded to challenge that adjudication by filing Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.86434/2016 is set aside. 6. During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned counsel were heard on an additional substantial question of law as under: "That, if the appellant is entitled for refund under Rule 5 of the said Rules whether the amount of refund would carry interest in view of provisions of Section 11BB of the said Act?". For said purpose the learned counsel for the respondent was called upon to verify as to whether the calculation of the refund claim as made by the appellant was correct and in accordance with law. On 27.07.2021 the respondent has filed pursis alongwith communication dated 26.07.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division Hingna in which it has been stated that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that date, the appellant would be entitled to receive interest. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that since the claim for refund was found to be inadmissible there would be no occasion to award interest from the period of three months on receipt of the application as prayed for. In any event, the amount of interest would have to be calculated by the concerned Authority and no directions in that regard need to be issued by the Court. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the additional substantial question of law we find that this issue stands concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra). This very question as regards commencement of the period for the purposes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n subsequently followed by this Court in Alfa Packaging and Qualcomm India Private Limited (supra). We are therefore inclined to follow the same course. The additional substantial question of law is accordingly answered by holding that since the appellant is found entitled for refund under Rule 5 of the said Rules the amount of refund would carry interest under Section 11BB of the said Act on the expiry of three months from 17.04.2015 on which date the refund application was received by the respondent till actual payment of the amount of interest. 9. In the light of the answers to the aforesaid substantial questions of law, the following order is passed: (I) The order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
