M/S. R.M. Dhariwal(Huf) vs Commissioner, Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. PIII/VM/32/2010 dtd. 16/2/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Pune III Commissionerate) For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes authorities? =======================================================

M/s. R.M. Dhariwal(HUF) : Appellants

VS

Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-III : Respondent

Appearance

None for the Appellants Shri. V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 15/4/2015 Date of decision 15/4/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : Ramesh Nair

This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PIII/VM/32/2010 dtd. 16/2/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Pune III Commissionerate wherein Ld. Commissioner rejected the appeal of the appellant. The fact of the case is that appellant filed refund claim on 19/2/2009 for Rs. 90 lakhs in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 against amount of pre-deposit made as per CESTAT direction in order No. A/05 to 07/09/EB/CI dated 13/1/2009. The said refund was sanctioned vide Order-in-Original dated 30/9/2009. Aggrieved by the said order inasmuch as refund was sanctioned beyond the prescribed time limit of three months, the appellant filed appeal for claim of interest for the delayed sanction of refund before the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order rejected appeal of the appellant, therefore the appellant is before me.

2. When the matter was called for the hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment was found on record. Therefore I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit.

3. Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that delay in sanctioning the refund claim is on account of not submitting attested TR -6 challans to the sanctioning authority. Therefore delay is not on the part of Revenue however delay is on part of the appellant, delay occurred due to the non-submission of documents by the appellant therefore appellant is not entitled for claim of interest.

4. I have carefully considered the submission made by Ld. A.R. as well as gone through the records. I find that refund claim was filed on 19/2/2009 and same was sanctioned on 30/9/2009. Hence there is apparent delay in sanctioning refund claim. It is observed that the refund is against pre-deposit of amount as directed by the Tribunal in some other matter. Appellant filed refund claim alongwith self-attested copies of TR 6 Challan and same was sufficient for sanctioning the refund claim for simple reason that the pre-deposit was ordered by the Tribunal and the same was deposited and Tribunal has accepted the compliance of such deposit. Therefore there is absolutely no dispute as regard deposit of such amount. In such circumstances the self attested copy of TR 6 Challan were sufficient for sanctioning of refund claim of pre-deposit amount within the stipulated time period of three months. Moreover, if the sanctioning authority is of view that the departmental attested copies of TR6 Challan are required, he could have asked the same well within the time period of three months which he failed to do. As of now it is settled law in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs Union Of India & Ors [2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX] passed by Honble Supreme Court that if the refund is delayed beyond three months from the date of filing the refund application, revenue is under obligation to grant interest for the delayed period. In view of the facts on the present case and settled law in the Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd case, I am of the considered view that the appellant is legally entitled for interest on the refund claim for the period beyond three months from the date of filing of application of refund till the sanction of refund claim in terms of 11 BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. I therefore allow the appeal of the appellant.

(Operative part pronounced in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial)

sk