TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent to the period of three months. As in the present case, the order for refund has been made on 16th November, 2000 i.e. much after the expiry of period of three months from the date of making the application, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay interest at the specified rate therein. Liability for payment of interest is statutory and, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, Ghaziabad to also pay interest from 26th November, 1999 to 16th November, 2000 at the rate specified u/s 11BB of the Act. Thus, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, Ghaziabad is directed to pay interest at the specified rate on the sum of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Tariff Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Act ) The respondents did not accept the classification claimed by the petitioner and their contention was that it is classifiable under the sub-heading 2107.90 of the Tariff Act. Steps were taken for recovery of differential duty and on that basis the petitioner started paying the duty as demanded under protest without charging it from its customers. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7766 of 1995 decided vide judgment and order dated 4th August 1999 [1999 (113) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.)], in which it was held that the Rooh Afza is classifiable under the Heading 2201.90. It has been stated by Sri Hari Shanker, learned Counsel appearing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submitted that if the duty is not refunded within three months from the date of the receipt of the application for refund, the respondents are liable to pay interest at the specified rate from the date of the application for refund immediately after the expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund till the date of payment of such duty. He submitted that it is the statutory liability of the respondents to pay the interest on the amount of the refund. Sri A.K. Rai submitted that as the adjudicating authority had made certain queries, the refund was delayed and, therefore, there is no liability to pay any interest to the petitioner. 5. Having given our anxious consideration to the various pleas rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the Court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purpose of this section. 6. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act, we find that the legislature by the aforesaid provision has cast a duty upon the adjudicating authority to decide the claim for refund immediately within three months failing which the liability for interest start running after excluding the period of three months from the date of the application. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the claim for refund was made on 25th August, 1999 whereas the order for refund has been passed on 16th November, 2000. Under the provision of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
