TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arred from raising demands for the refunds already granted, the appellants also cannot seek interest on the refunds already granted. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE (J AND K) VERSUS M/S. SARASWATI AGRO CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. [ 2023 (7) TMI 542 - SC ORDER] observed that the subsequent decision of this Court overruling M/S. SRD NUTRIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI [ 2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT] in the case of M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] cannot have a bearing on past decisions which had attained finality although they had followed SRD Nutrients (P) Limited, which was subsequently overruled in M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (supra) was reversed by the Hon ble Apex Court themselves in case of M/s Unicorn Industries- 2019 (370) ELT 3 (SC) and that refund itself is not admissible, the question of payment of interest does not arise. Hence, these appeals. 2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the refund was in nature of pre-deposit and hence, interest is payable; the impugned order travelled beyond the scope of the showcause notice as the refund itself was questioned. He further submits that when the refund was sanctioned, interest follows automatically; he relies on Ashok Shety Associates C.A. 2017 (4) GSTL 53 (Tri. Bang.) and Global United Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (368) ELT 1041 (Mad.) and Ranbaxy Laboratories 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be taken away for the reason that the Hon ble Apex Court has overturned the decision in SRD Nutrients (supra) vide their decision in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries (supra). It is the case of the Department that as the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in SRD Nutrients (supra) is no longer in vogue, the refund granted itself is not a matter of right of the appellant and therefore, the case of granting of interest does not arise. 6. I find that consequent to the passing of judgment by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries (supra), the Department has raised a number of demands on the refunds already granted to various assessees; Hon ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir in the case of Narbada Industrial Bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arified vide Circular No.682/73/2002-CX dated 19.11.2002 that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable in the case of Exemption Notifications No.56/2002 and No. 57/2002 both dated 14.11.2002. I am in agreement with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the mechanism of refund has been put in place in order to operationalize the exemption contained in the notifications and to the extent, refunds arising out of these notifications cannot be considered to be refunds under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For this reason also, I find that the appellants have not made out any case for grant of interest. 5. I further find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
