M/S. S B Distributors Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 57701 of 2013- (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The interest on a delayed refund of duty under the Central Excise regime is payable for the period commencing three months after the date on which the refund claim was filed, and continuing until the refund is actually paid; the date of disposal of the appeal against the rejection of the claim does not fix the starting point.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 107/CE/DLH/2012 dated 27/12/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr 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?
M/s. S B Distributors Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
New Delhi
Appearance:
Shri A C Jain, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri V P Batra, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 28.04.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/51578/2015-(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The short issue involved in the matter is that what is the relevant date for claiming the interest on delayed refund given by the department.
2. The facts of the case are that appellant filed the refund claim on 4.5.09. The refund claim was sought to be rejected on the premise that the activity amount to manufacture and same has been settled by Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.5.11 and thereafter their refund claim was sanctioned on 20.10.11. The appellant thereafter filed claim for interest on delayed refund which was sought to be denied on the premise that refund claim has been sanctioned when the lis between the appellant and department Commissioner (Appeals) settled the matter within three months .
3. Heard the parties.
4. The issue has been settled by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC)] wherein it has been held that interest is to be payable after three months from the date of filing of refund claim. Admittedly, in this case, refund claim has been filed by the appellant form 4.5.09 and refund claim has been sanctioned in the year 2011. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant is entitled to interest for the delayed refund for the period after three months from 4.5.09 till the refund claim is paid to the appellant. With these terms appeal is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2
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