9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT Credit was utilized for payment of duty on their finished goods in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. ii. The petitioner had cleared a refurbished TBM in semi-knocked down condition for export to M/s. Herrenknecht AG, Germany. The petitioner claimed rebate of Rs. 2,99,45,260/- in relation to the said export. Whileso, a show cause notice No.2 of 2016 dated 02.02.2016 was issued by the Principal Commissioner, Chennai 1 Commissionerate requiring the applicant to show cause as to why CENVAT Credit availed on CVD/SAD paid during import of used TBM should not be recovered inasmuch as they had availed credit of duty paid on goods used in a process not amounting to manufacture. The rebate claim filed by the petitioner on 07.07.2016 came to be rejected vide order in Original No. 177 / 2016 (R) dated 10.10.2016 on the premise that the process carried out by the petitioner did not amount to manufacture. iii. The petitioner preferred an appeal in Appeal No.314/2017 (CTA- II) which was also rejected vide order dated 31.10.2017 reiterating the view that the process carried out by the petitioner did not constitute manufacture and thus not entitled to CENVAT Credit. iv. Whileso, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove direction of this Court and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, rejected the petitioner's claim of interest on the premise that originally the petitioner's claim for rebate filed on 11.07.2016 was rejected vide order dated 10.10.2016 i.e., within 3 months from the receipt of the application. Hence, the question of delay in refund and consequential interest does not arise. The impugned order also sought to rely on the deeming contained in the proviso to Section 11BB of the Act whereby the order passed by the Appellate Authority or a Court is deemed to be an order passed under sub Section 2 for the purpose of Section 11B of the Act. It was further stated that the rebate claim was sanctioned / crystalized only vide order dated 19.12.2019. Thus the question of interest due to delay in grant of rebate does not arise. It is this order of the respondent which is challenged. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) and also the direction of this Court in W.P.No.9348 of 2020 wherein it has been h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority or by the court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11-B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11-BB of the Act. (emphasis supplied) 6.1. It is clear from the above extract that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the Explanation to Section 11BB of the Act to suggest that in view of the deeming contained therein, the interest payable on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Act would accrue only in the event of delay in making the refund beyond 3 months from the date of the order of the adjudicating authority / appellate authority / Court was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to place reliance on the circular dated 02.06.1998 wherein it has been clarified that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act would stand attracted automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of 3 months from the date of application. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract a Circular dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT T-16] wherein the Board has directed that responsibility should be fixed for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of application. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Commissioners may devise a suitable monitoring mechanism to ensure timely disposal of refund/rebate claims. Whereas all necessary action should be taken to ensure that no interest liability is attracted, should the liability arise, the legal provision for the payment of interest should be scrupulously followed." (emphasis supplied) 16. Thus, ever since Section 11-BB was inserted in the Act with effect from 26-5-1995, the Department has maintained a consistent stand about its interpretation. Explaining the intent, import and the manner in which it is to be implemented, the circulars clearly state that the relevant date in this regard is the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Section 11-B(1) of the Act. 17. We, thus find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in fact the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in U.P. Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. [(2009) 243 ELT A-27 (SC)] In the said case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
