9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agar Industrial Area, Ghaziabad 9UP) is allowed with consequential relief which should be granted within four weeks of receipt of this order." 2.1 Revenue has filed this appeal ➢ whether Commissioner (Appeal) has examined the veracity of the fact of refund claim purportedly filed by the party_ on 07.04.1997. No record of the party's refund claim having been filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is available with the department. In such a scenario, it is not beyond doubt that any such claim was actually filed by the party on 07.04.1997. No record is there with this office that the assessee made application for refund in statutorily prescribed format addressed to the competent authority, that is, jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner which was duly acknowledged and subsequently reflected in the pendency of the division as reported in the Monthly Technical Report (MTR) which is strictly monitored by higher authorities for any refund pending for more than 3 months. Nothing transpires from the Order-in-Appeal passed by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) whether he has satisfied himself about the genuineness of the date of filing of refund claim He has nowhere discussed wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant submitted on 7.4.1997 an application for refund of duty Rs.1,11,11,941/- paid under protest for the above stated period from 14.5.1986 to 13.6.1990. The said refund application was rejected by jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise through order-in-original dated 22.11.2013. The discussion and finding of original authority are reproduce below:- "10. ...." In view of above findings the original authority rejected the claim of refund filed on 7.4.1997. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before commissioner(Appeals). Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) decided the appeal thorough impugned order-in-appeal dated 19.5.2014. The finding of ld.Commissioner(Appeals) in para 5.6 and 5.7 of impugned order is reproduced below for appreciation:- "5.6 Thus I find that the cause of action of filing of impugned refund claim in this case was arisen from the OIA No.188/91 dated 03.5.1991 of the Collector (Appeals) setting the dispute of classification in their favour and the appellant was required to file the refund claim within six month from the date of said order. However refund claim has been filed by them on 07.4.1997 and hence I agree with the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Ltd. [2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (SC)] Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "..... The core issue which confronts us in all these appeals relates to the question of commencement of the period for the purpose of payment of interest, on delayed refunds, in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"). In short, the question is whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made? ........ .....Section 11BB, the pivotal provision, reads thus : "11BB. Interest on delayed refunds. - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by Notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable. 10. It is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. [See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739]. 11. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract a Circular dated 1st October 2002, issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, wherein referring to its earlier Circular dated 2nd June 1998, whereby a direction was issued to fix responsibility for not disposing of the refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitoring 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 ) 12. Thus, ever since Section 11BB was inserted in the Act with effect from 26th May 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 11B(1) of the Act. 13. We, thus find substance in the contention of 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. (supra). In the said case, while dismissing the special leave petition filed by the revenue and putting its seal of approval on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, this Court had observed as under : "Heard both the parties. In our view the law laid down by the Rajasthan High Court suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
