TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of application for the refund and not from the date of the appellate orders. This issue was settled by the Supreme Court in RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT ] . Although it was suggested by the learned Counsel for the Revenue that the refund should be calculated from the date after the expiry of three months from the date of the CESTAT Order, that is, three months from the order dated 07.12.2022. The said contention is unmerited and as stated above, the said issue stands authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. - The above question does not arise in the present case as the Adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the Adjudicating Authority has sanctioned the refund of unutilised Cenvat Credit as claimed by the petitioner, but has denied the interest on the said amount, on the ground that the refund has been sanctioned within a period of three months, as contemplated under Section 11BB of the Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act. The impugned order indicates that the Adjudicating Authority had considered the date of application for refund as 07.02.2023, instead of the dates on which the applications were first made. 3. At the material time, the petitioner was, inter alia, engaged in providing services to Blackberry Singapore Pte. Ltd., an overseas entity. The petitioner claimed that the services provided by it to Blackberry Singapor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19.08.2021, and upheld the Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2020. 8. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the CESTAT ), which was allowed by a final order No. 51150/2022 dated 07.12.2022. 9. Notwithstanding that the petitioner had succeeded before the CESTAT, the petitioner s claim for refund was not processed immediately. The petitioner once again sent a letter dated 07.02.2023, seeking refund of the amount of ₹8,55,34,345/- along with the interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act. 10. In the meanwhile, the Revenue filed an appeal against the Order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the CESTAT before this Court ( SERTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatively settled by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra). 14. The above question does not arise in the present case as the Adjudicating Authority has correctly proceeded on the basis that the interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act would be payable from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of application for refund, if the same is not processed within the said period of three months. He has, however, erred in holding that the petitioner s letter dated 07.02.2023, requesting for processing its claims for refund is to be considered as its application for refund. 15. The impugned order is, ex facie, erroneous to the extent it rejects the petitioner s claim for interest. The impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
