Mysore Paper Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 127/2008 dated 01/09/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. 16/4, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore  560 052 Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore 7th Floor, Trade Centre, Bunts Hostel Road, Mangalore  575 003 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mrs. M. Jamuna Rani, Advocate ILPM Consultants No.123, "Swathi" 6th Main, Between 12th & 13th Cross, Malleswaram Bangalore  560 003 Karnataka For the Appellant

Mr. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 26/06/2015 Date of Decision: 26/06/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21598 / 2015

The short issue in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to interest in terms of Section 11BB in respect of refund application filed on 23.05.1983 for the period 16.03.1976 to 31.03.1981. The said refund to the tune of around 14.19 lakhs (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Nineteen Thousand approximately) was originally rejected by the adjudicating authority vide his order dated 04.02.1993. Thereafter, after a lot of litigation the matter was finally disposed of by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 2105/2005 dated 2.12.2005 holding as  refund shall be made within three months from the receipt of this order along with interest in terms of Boards letter and Apex Courts judgment in this point.

2. As a result of the Tribunals order the appellant was refunded the amount along with interest applicable from 27.08.1995 onwards. It is seen that Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, providing payment of interest on delayed refund was introduced w.e.f. 26.05.1995. Inasmuch as the refund application was pending on the said date, and was finally decided by the Tribunal vide their subsequent order, the appellant was granted refund along with interest applicable from the period of three months from the date of introduction of the said Section 11BB.

3. The appellant in their present appeal claimed interest from a period of three months from the date of filing of the refund application. The Revenues contention is inasmuch as during the relevant time, there was no provision of Section 11BB, which was introduced only w.e.f. 26.05.1995, interest cannot be granted for the period prior to the said introduction of Section 11BB.

4. I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunal decision in the case of Steel Strips Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana [2004 (178) E.L.T. 202 (Tri.-Del.)] which stands held that the interest is not payable in respect of refund applications belonging to the period prior to insertion of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. In the present case also I find that the refund claim was filed prior to 26.05.1995 and in fact was rejected by the original adjudicating authority prior to the said date. As such on the date when the refund application was decided, there was no provision in the law for grant of interest on the refund applications. It is well settled law that a provision of law which is not in the statute book on a particular date, cannot be held to be retrospective and applicable to the cases prior to the introduction of the said Section. As such I find no infirmity in the impugned orders of authorities below. The appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss