TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Hon ble Apex Court has held that the Revenue is liable to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act and the period commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of said period from the date on which the order of refund is made.s per the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (supra) wherein Hon ble Apex Court has held that the Revenue is liable to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act and the period commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of said period from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion C/60214/2022 Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd 510417.00 07.07.2017 C/60218/2022 Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd 2287560.00 30.03.2017 C/60215/2022 Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd 14956023.00 26.08.2016 C/60216/2022 Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd 27801977.00 15.05.2017 C/60217/202 Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd 12017289.00 21.07.2017 2.2 For the sake of convenience the facts of Appeal No. C/60214/2022 are taken. 3.1 Brief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeals filed by them. 3.3 The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the respondents/assessees filed the refund claims. After the decision of the CESTAT, the Department sanctioned the refund claims, but ordered that the same to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of bar of unjust-enrichment. 3.4 Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents/assessees filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 21.06.2018 rejected the appeals of the respondents/assessees. 3.5 Further, aggrieved by the order dt. 21.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962. He further submitted that the claim of respondents/assessees were processed within the time limit of three months and the same was sanctioned as per the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that as per Section 27(2), the Revenue is liable to pay interest from the date of decision of the Tribunal i.e. 02.04.2019. He also submitted that the subject refund claim has been disposed of within period of three months as prescribed under Section 27(A) of the Act and therefore, the respondents/assessees are not entitled to claim the interest on the said refunds. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the respondents/asseessees submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vide notification issued under Section 27(A) from time to time after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application till the date on which the refund has actually been paid. Here, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) contained in para 9 to para 13 which are reproduced herein below: 9. In view of above discussion and judgments cited supra, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and there is no need of any interference in the impugned order. Hence, I dismiss all five appeals filed by the Revenue by upholding the impugned order. 10. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. (Order pronounced on 14.02.2023) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
