Bsn Ltd vs C.C.E & S.T.-Jaipur-Ii

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 150(OPD)CE/JPR-II/2013 dated 30.09.2013 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur-II.]

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

BSN Ltd. .Appellants

Vs. C.C.E & S.T.-Jaipur-II .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the Appellants Ms. Ranjana.Jha, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 18.03.2015 Date of Pronounce:

FINAL ORDER NO. 50880/2015 Per Ashok Jindal:

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting that the claim of interest on delayed refund.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has filed the refund claims in the months of March/April,2002, thereafter a show cause notice dated 11.10.2002 was issued and refund claims were sanctioned but transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund to the tune of Rs. 62,20,506 /-. The said order of adjudicating authority was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who also affirmed the order of adjudicating authority. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 02.05.2012 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue of bar of unjust enrichment and in remand proceedings the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim holding that bar of unjust enrichment has been passed by the appellant. Thereafter on 14.08.2012, the refund claims were given to the appellant. The appellant claimed interest on delayed refund after three months from the date of filing of the refund claims. But the said claim of interest was rejected by both the lower authorities, therefore, appellant is before me.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no more res integra as held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd-2011 273 ELT 3 (SC), wherein it has been held that interest on delayed refund is entitled after three months from date of filing of the refund claim. He further submits that the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. wherein vide Final Order No. A/50269/2015 ST dated 22.01.2015, this Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to claim interest for the period after three months from the date of filing of refund claim till it was sanctioned. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appeal be allowed with consequential relief.

4. On the other hand, Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the appellant has not provided relevant documents at the time of filing of refund claim and same is evident from the order of this Tribunal dated 22.05.2012. Thereafter, the appellant had provided the required documents and on the basis of those documents refund claim has been sanctioned, therefore interest is not payable.

5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

6. It is admitted fact that appellant has filed refund claims in March/April,2002. No Deficiency memo was issued to the appellant for different refund claims and the same has been accepted by the department. Only on 11.10.2002, a show cause notice has been issued whereas refund claim has been required to be entertained within three months from the date of filing of the refund claim. But nothing was done in three months ,therefore, the argument advanced by the Ld. AR that appellant has not supplied required documents is not tenable. Further, I find that the issue has been settled by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. In these circumstances, the issue is no more res integra wherein it has been held that for delayed refunds, interest is payable after three months from the date of filing the refund claim till its realization. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to claim the interest after three months from the date of filing of the refund claim till its realization. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

(Order Pronounced on _________)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhupen

2