Interest on delayed refund is permissible from expiry of 3 months’ from the date of filing of Refund application and not from the date of Refund Order
PrintListen to this Article
Interest on delayed refund is permissible from expiry of 3 months’ from the date of filing of Refund application and not from the date of Refund Order
We are sharing with you an important judgment of Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot [2015-TIOL-240-CESTAT-AHM] on the following issue:
Issue:
Whether Interest on delayed refund is permissible from expiry of 3 months from the date of filing Refund application?
Facts & background:
In the present case, Tata Chemicals Ltd. (“the Appellant”) filed eleven Refund claims amounting to Rs. 1,26,78,767/- during the period September 1997 to December 1999. However, the Refund claims were initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
However, the same were allowed by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad vides its Order dated August 13, 2003 which was paid to the Appellant on February 23, 2004.
Since there was a delay in sanction and payment of Refunds, for more than three months from the date of filing of Refund applications, the Appellant applied for interest on delayed payment of Refunds under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“the Excise Act”) up to the date of refund i.e., February 23, 2004.
However, this request was rejected by Adjudicating Authority, which was followed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad.
The Appellant relying upon following cases:
- Tirupati Pipe & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2008 [(227) ELT 247 (Tri-Mum) 2007-TIOL-1862-CESTAT-MUM]
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs. UOI [2011 (273) ELT 3 (S.C.)] (“the Ranbaxy Laboratory case”).
- J.K. Cement Works Vs. ACCE & C 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj.) and AC Vs M/s J.K. Cement Works [2005 (179) ELT A-150 (S.C.)]
- Jayanta Glass Ltd Vs. CCE Kolkata [2004 (165) ELT 516 (Tri-LB)]
- Rama Vision Ltd Vs. CCE Meerut [2004 (170) ELT 13 (Tri-LB)]
- Surajbhan Synthetics (P) Ltd Vs. CCE [2014 (301) ELT 386]
On the other hand, the Revenue argued that as per Explanation to Section 11BB of the Excise Act, the Order passed by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad will be deemed to be an Order passed under Section 11B(2) of the Excise Act and since Refunds of the Appellant were decided within 3 months from the date of the Hon’ble CESTAT's Order, no interest is payable.
Held:
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relying upon the decision in the Ranbaxy Laboratory case held that under Section 11BB of the Excise Act, there is no provision that relevant date for determining the rate of interest will be postponed in any eventuality. As per these provisions, interest payment accrues from the expiry of 3 months from the date of Refund application made under Section 11B(1) of the Excise Act. Thus, the Appellant is rightly entitled for interest on delayed Refund from the date of filing of refund applications till the date of payment.
Our Comments:
Recently, in the case of Vodafone (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I [2014-TIOL-2263- CESTAT-MUM], Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai, held that the Authorities have to take expeditious steps to sanction the Refund claim keeping in mind that the interest is to be paid from the kitty of the general public. The Hon’ble Tribunal further ordered that the copy of the Order be sent to the Chairman, CBEC, Secretary (Rev), the Ministry of Finance and the Hon'ble Finance Minister for necessary consideration.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Delhi:
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 313
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments