M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Madurai
- CitationAppeal No. 112/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a rebate sanctioned by the department was appropriated towards duty arising from an order under appeal, and the amount was later released in compliance with a High Court direction setting aside that appropriation, the claimant is entitled to interest on the delayed refund of the rebate, the delay being attributable to the department's unlawful adjustment. Following its own earlier final orders in the same appellant's case, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories v. Union of India, a Tribunal bound by those orders may not deny interest on such delayed rebate and must set aside an order denying it, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 112/2013 dated 30.08.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai).
M/s. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Madurai : Respondent
Appearance
Shri Sandeep Thakur, Authorized Representative For the appellant
Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR), For the respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
FINAL ORDER No. 41019 / 2015
Date of Hearing/Decision: 24.04.2015
The appellant filed appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.08.2013.
2. The short issue involved in this appeal relates to the payment of interest on delayed refund. The appellant submitted an application to the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai on 07.11.2012 requesting to releasing the appropriated rebate amount and in compliance of the Honble High Court of Madras of Madurai Bench Order dated 29.10.2012, rebate amount of Rs.29, 42,034/- was sanctioned vide Order-in-Original Nos. 90-91/2011 dated 18.11.11, 92/11 dated 22.11.11, 93/11 dated 23.11.11, 94/11 dated 24.11.11 and 95/11 dated 25.11.11 and released the appropriated rate amount vide Order-in-Original dated 10.12.2012 and rejected the claim of interest. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The authorized representative appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that they have filed the rebate claim on duty paid on the multiple folded yarns exported. The rebate application was duly acknowledged by the department. While sanctioning the rebate in the above OIO, the department appropriated the said amount towards arrears of duty due involved in O-in-A dated 30.08.2013, in spite of informing the department that the stay application was pending before the Tribunal against the Order. Meanwhile they have filed writ petition before the Honble High Court of Madras and also writ appeals. Consequent on the Honble High Courts order dated 29.10.2012, the Honble High Court directed the department to pay the rebate amount. Therefore, the appellants are rightly eligible for interest on the delayed payment of rebate. The department has already paid the interest as per the Tribunals Final Order in the appellants own case in Final Order No. 784-789/2012 dated 13.07.2012 and Final Order No. 375-392/2012 dated 20.04.2012, wherein the Tribunal in both the appeal allowed the interest on the rebate amount.
4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the finding of the adjudicating authority and submitted that the adjudicating authority has correctly sanctioned the rebate well in time and the same was appropriated towards dues as there was no stay against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, as per the Honble High Court Order, the amount was paid immediately and the Honble High Courts Order was implemented.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the records. In the present case, the rebate was initially sanctioned and the same was appropriated towards dues arising out of Commissioners Order. I find that the said appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order and stay was obtained vide Tribunals Misc. Order dated 08.06.2012 and it was subsequently extended by another order. During the period when stay was not extended by the Tribunal as there was no Division Bench sitting, the authority has adjusted the amount sanctioned towards recovery by holding that there was no stay which has resulted in appellant filing of writ petition before the Honble High Court of Madras. The Madurai Bench of the Honble High Court of Madras set aside the said recovery in their order dated 29.10.2012 and directed the department to release the amount and in compliance with the High Court direction, the said amount was released by the authority in O-in-O dated 10.12.2012. I find that since the original amount was sanctioned on 18.11.11, 22.11.11, 23.11.11, 24.11.11, 25.11.11, which was initially appropriated but subsequently released on 10.12.2012, the appellants are eligible for the refund of interest on the delayed payment. This Tribunal in the appellants own case in Final Orders No. 784-789/2012 dated 13.07.2012 and No. 375-392/2012 dated 20.04.2012 by relying the Honble Apex Courts decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 3 (S.C), has set aside the orders denying interest and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. By consistently following the above decisions in the appellants own case, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Operative part of the Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.04.2015)
(R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER
BB
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free