9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli whereby the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the assessees thereby upholding the denial of interest on the refund sanctioned. 2. Heard Shri Akshit Malhotra, Ld. Advocate, for the appellants and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Assistant Commissioner, for the respondent. After hearing both sides, we find that a common issue is involved in all these appeals, and therefore, all the appeals are taken up for common disposal. 3. The details of the refund claims filed by the appellants are as under: - * M/s. National Synthetics (Appeal Nos. C/42085 & 42086/2013) Sl. No. Date of filing of refund claim Amount of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 holds that the required documents were filed by the appellants only on 11.02.2013; the lower authority having sanctioned the refunds vide Orders-in-Original dated 01.04.2013, which was very much within the prescribed time-limit of three months as per the Board's Instruction in Circular No. 6/2008 dated 28.04.2008 and therefore, there was no question of any delay in passing the orders and hence, the question of interest as claimed did not arise at all. 7. It is against the above rejection that the present appeals have been filed before this forum. 8. The Ld. Advocate would contend at the outset that the very same issue has been decided by this very Bench of the CESTAT in the appellants' own case in Final Order Nos. 40727-40728 of 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II thereto, which was duly complied with by the appellants. The lower appellate authority has clearly proceeded on the compliance date, which according to him is 11.02.2013, to hold that the refund orders have been passed within three months from that date, which, according to him, are very much within the prescribed period. 12.1 We are afraid, that is not the correct position of law since Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act is clear as to the liability to pay interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund. For convenience, the relevant portion of Section 11BB is reproduced hereinbelow: "Section 11BB. Interest on delayed refunds. - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest on refund since the claim of the appellants is relatable to the date of its applications, and not the date of compliance with the query raised by the Revenue. Going by the said dates of applications, the refund sanctioned vide Orders-in-Original dated 01.04.2013 are clearly beyond the prescribed period of three months. Hence, we do not find any reasons to sustain the impugned orders of the first appellate authority, for which reason the impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos. 135 & 136/2013 dated 16.07.2013 and Order-in-Appeal Nos. 141 & 142/2013 dated 30.07.2013 are set aside.
14. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2023) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
