M/S Nutech Packagings vs C.C. & C.E. & S.T. - Noida
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/51124/2014 -E[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not disposed of within three months of its receipt, the claimant is entitled under Section 11BB of that Act to interest on the refunded duty from the expiry of that three-month period until the date the refund is sanctioned; interest cannot be claimed for any period before the first refund application was lodged. A revised refund claim lodged after the original application does not constitute the date of filing of the refund application for the purpose of computing interest under Section 11BB; the date of the original application governs.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. NOI/EXCUS/000/Appl/157/13-14 dated 30.07.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals)-Noida]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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?
M/s Nutech Packagings ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C. & C.E. & S.T. - Noida Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Victor Das, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. M S Negi, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing.15.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 53086 /2015
Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):
Classification of the finished excisable goods manufactured by the appellant was under dispute, which was ultimately resolved in favour of the appellant vide denovo adjudication order dated 30.04.2012. Subsequently, the appellant filed the refund application on 12.07.2012, claiming refund of Central Excise duty of Rs. 22,11,663/- paid on the finished goods removed from the factory. The refund application was disposed of by the original authority on 4.4.2013 wherein Rs. 18,34,705/- was allowed in favour of the appellant. The appellant claimed the interest amount for delayed sanction of refund for the period January 2004 till the sanction of refund i.e. 4.4.2013. Claiming of interest amount was disallowed by the authorities below. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.
2. Heard SH. Victor Das, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. M. S. Negi, the Ld. DR for the Respondent.
3. Both the sides agree that the refund claim was filed by the appellant on 12.07.2012, claiming refund of Rs. 22,11,663/- and subsequently the said application was revised on 4.12.2012 in reducing the claim amount to Rs. 18,34,705/-.
4. Payment of interest for delayed sanction of refund is contained in section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to the said statutory provisions, the duty ordered to be refunded under sub section (2) of Section 11B if not refunded to the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that Section, then the appellant shall be paid an interest at such rate as may be prescribed by the Central Government. In the present case, it is an admitted fact on record that the refund application was filed by the appellant on 12.07.2012 and the refund application was considered and allowed on 4.4.2013, which is beyond the period of three months as prescribed under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, as per the statutory provisions, the Department is required to pay the interest beyond three months from the date of application, claiming refund of the duty amount. Hence, the appellant shall be eligible for interest from 12.10.2012 to 03.04.2013.
5. The claim of the appellant that they are entitle for interest from January 2004 is not in conformity with the statutory provisions inasmuch as the refund application was filed for the first time on 12.07.2012 which was sanctioned in their favor on 04.04.2013. In view of the fact that no refund application has been lodged in 2004, the interest claim for the period from 2004 is not maintainable in terms of Section 11BB of the Act, 1944.
6. With regard to the submissions of Ld. DR that the refund application was revised on 4.12.2012 and the said date is to be considered as the date of filing refund application and since the refund amount has been sanctioned within three months from 4.12.2012, there is no delay in sanction of refund, I find that the refund application initially filed by the applicant on 12.07.2012 was not returned by the Adjudicating Authority to the appellant and the same was processed and sanctioned on the basis of the said application. Since, the revised claim was lodged on 4.12.2012, the same cannot be considered as the date of filing of the refund application, and as such, for the purpose of computation of interest amount, the date of original application i.e. 12.07.2012 will be considered as the date of filing.
8. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is eligible for interest for the period from 12.10.2012 (expiry of three months from date of application) to 03.04.2013 (duty considered for refund). The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 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