TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Hon ble Supreme Court and the notice was issued. It is also found that no stay from the operation of the Order of the Hon ble High Court was granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Under the prevailing circumstances the Order of the Hon ble Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s.Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. UOI has the binding effect on this Tribunal. The Appellant is entitled for interest under Section 11BB. Accordingly, the interest to the Appellant is allowed under Section 11BB immediately after 3 (three) months from the date of filing of the application - the Revenue is directed to make the payment of interest to the Appellant within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal allowed - decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.1999 (hereinafter referred to as Exemption Notification ), thereby granting exemption to certain units located in certain specific regions from so much of the Excise Duty or Additional Duties of Excise as the case may be, leviable thereon under the said Notification as equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of the goods. 4. As per the Terms and conditions of the Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, the manufacturer is required to submit a statement of duty paid from the current account to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, by the 7th of next month in which the duty has been paid from the current account. The said exemption notification also casts an obligation on the Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the Department s S.L.P. No. CC13549 of 2013. 6. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority following the directions of Hon ble Gauhati High Court granted a fresh opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant to decide the issue that whether the Appellant was entitled for exemption Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 and consequently entitled for refund of ₹ 3,96,27,347/-. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner considering the directions of the Hon ble Gauhati High Court and taking into cognizance of the documents, came to the conclusion that the Appellant is entitled for refund of ₹ 3,96,26,444/-. Accordingly, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 12.12.2013 sanctioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Notification 32/99. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 cannot be said to be conclusive and the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the provisions of Section 11B and Section 11BB are not applicable in respect of the refund claim filed by the Appellant under the said Notification is inappropriate. 8. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the issue to grant interest on the delayed payment of refund under the provisions of Section 11BB is well settled now and the Hon ble Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s Amalgamated Plantation Private Limited Vs. UOI reported at 2013 (296) E.L.T. 13G (Gau.) under similar facts and circumstances has held that Section 11B ibid does not exclude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.C.). He contended that the issue is still pending for decision before the Hon ble Supreme Court but on being asked, he submitted that no stay in respect of the operation of the Order of the Hon ble High Court has been granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court so far. 10. Heard both sides through video conferencing and pursued the appeal records and the cited judgements. 11. It is undisputed that the principal amount was sanctioned to the Appellant by the Assistant Commissioner vide its Order dated 12.12.2013. Similarly, the interest claimed by the Appellant under Section 11BB was rejected on the ground that the provisions of Section 11BB shall not apply in case where the Exemption Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 is being claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 does not exclude claim of refund made in terms of the notification dated 08.07.1999. Petitioners would, 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 amounts found due shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from today. 13. The Review Petition filed by the Department reported at 2016 (340) E.L.T. 310 (Gau.) in the case of UOI Vs. M/s Amalgamated Plantations (P.) Ltd., was also dismissed by the Hon ble High Court of Gauhati and while dismissing the Review Petition the Court has observed as under- 17. On due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
