TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the jurisdictional refund sanctioning authority to the Final Order dated 9 July 2018 passed by this Tribunal and cannot be construed as a fresh claim. If there was a delay whether the Appellants are entitled to claim for interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act? - HELD THAT:- The said issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Amalgamated Plantations [ 2013 (11) TMI 589 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] where it was held that Petitioners, should, therefore be entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the excise duty refunded to them. The jurisdictional excise officers shall now determine the interest amount payable to the petitioners for the relevant periods. The amount found due shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from today. If the provisions of Section 11BB are applicable to the facts of the present case whether the period of three months is to be reckoned from the date of the order sanctioning the refund or from the date of the application seeking refund? - HELD THAT:- It is settled by the decision of the Hon ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awing support from the decision of the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (296) ELT 13 and Order passed in the review petition, reported in 2016 (340) ELT 310. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the original authority rejected the Appellants claim for interest on the ground that the refund was sanctioned within a period of three months from the date of resubmission of the Appellants claim for refund on 27 February 2019 consequent to the Final Order dated 9 July 2018 passed by this Tribunal.The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that since the very question of eligibility of refund was decided by this Tribunal only on 9 July 2018, the intervening period of dispute does not confer any right upon the Appellant to claim interest. Moreover, there was no delay in sanctioning of the refund with reference to the relevant date prescribed under Section 11B(5)(B)(ec) of the Central Excise Act, the question of payment of any interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, did not arise. 3. Shri Arvind Baheti, learned Chartered Accountant has assailed the appellate order on the following grounds: (i) Refunds process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorized Representative for the Respondent supports and reiterates the findings of the learned Appellate Commissioner in the OIA s. It is also contended on behalf of the revenue that there is a conflict between the decisions rendered by the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in Vernerpur Tea Estate case relied upon by the Appellants for claiming refund in the first round of litigation vis - vis the decision in the case of Amalgamated Plantations (supra) relied upon by the Appellants for claiming interest under Section 11BB of the Act. It is pointed out by the revenue that the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in Vernerpur case observed that the manufacturer is not required to submit a separate claim for refund of duty paid under Notification No. 33/1999 and the submission of the monthly returns is substantial compliance with Clause 2(a) of the said notification and on the other hand, the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in the Amalgamated Plantations case (supra) observed that refunds processed under Notification No. 33/1999 are not outside the purview of Section 11B of the Act. Since the Vernerpur decision of the Hon ble Guwahati High Court is a later decision and the Appellants having taken the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Since the claim for refund/exemption filed by the Appellants in 2008 was eventually adjudicated in favour of the Appellants in 2019, it is evident that there was a delay in the processing of the refund in favour of the Appellants. The Original Authority and the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the premise that the communication dated 27 February 2019 is a claim for refund, which is factually incorrect. The said communication dated 27 February 2019 by the Appellants is only forwarding and inviting the attention of the jurisdictional refund sanctioning authority to the Final Order dated 9 July 2018 passed by this Tribunal and cannot be construed as a fresh claim. 8. Coming to issue (b) as regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) vide order dated:- 24.12.2012 allowed the appeals of the petitioners and held that it would be unfair to reject the claim of refund submitted by the petitioners on the grounds of delay. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue preferred a further appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Kolkata (CESTAT). The CESTAT by common Judgment and order dated:- 29.02.2016 allowed the appeals of the Revenue holding that a statement is required to be filed in order to claim refund under the Notification and filing of RT-12 cannot be considered to be a proper statement. Being aggrieved by the order of the CESTAT dated:- 29.02.2016, the petitioners filed a Central Excise Appeal before this Hon ble Court and the same was registered and numbered as Central Excise Appeal No. 08/2016. This Hon ble Court vide Judgment and order dated 20.02.2018 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the CESTAT. The Hon ble Gauhati High Court by Judgment and Order dated:- 29.02.2016 allowed the appeal by holding as under:- A bare reading of the above quoted clauses of the Notification makes it cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submit a separate statement of the duty paid and claim refund. 7. That after, the Judgment of this Hon ble Court, the Assistant Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax vide order-in-Original No. 15/REF/DIV/DIB/ACD/18-19 dated 11.07.2018 held that the petitioners to be eligible for the refund of Central Excise duty and sanctioned the refund amount of ₹ 39,33,061/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Sixty One only) for the period with effect from July, 1999 to February, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner therein (Muttuck Tea Estate)claimed interest on delayed refund of central excise duty under Notification No. 33/1999 and the same was allowed by the Hon ble Guwahati High Court by following the decision rendered in the Amalgamated Plantation Case (supra) and a host of other judicial pronouncements. Incidentally, the decision of the Guwahati High Court extracted at para 6 above and the decision of the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in Vernerpur case (supra) are identical decisions arising from a common order dated 29 February 2016 passed by the CESTAT involving multiple tea estates, including Muttuck Tea Estate. 9. I also do not find any inconsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
