The Bombay High Court in an appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise dismissed the revenue's challenge against a CESTAT order allowing interest on a delayed tax refund.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
kambli
cexal-188-08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
… CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.188 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-II, Commissionerate ...Appellant v/s. M/s.Sulaki Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent …
Mr.N.V.Kalantri for appellant.
CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 20 FEBRUARY 2014
P.C.:
This is an appeal from the order dated 18 January 2008 of t6he Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).
(a) Whether in terms of explanation given in Section 11BB, the order passed by the Appellate Authority becomes an Order under sub-section (2) namely an order of refund and, therefore, the date of the order of the Appellate Authority is the relevant date for the purpose of refund under Section 11BB?
(b) Whether in view of the aforesaid legal position CESTAT is correct in law in allowing the interest on delayed refund u/s.11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
1 of 3
2
kambli
cexal-188-08
3.
The respondent herein (assessee) paid Rs.14,26,952/- as Central Excise Duty to RG 23 Part II account. When it was pointed out by the Department that such duty cannot be paid from RG 23 Part II account, the assessee paid equal amount through PLA and claimed refund of duty paid from RG 23 Part II account from the Asst.Commissioner. The Asst.Commisioner granted him refund of Rs.2,96,349/- and rejected the claim of Rs.11,30,603/- as time barred. Subsequently, on appeal the refund of Rs.11,30,603/- was also allowed. The appellant-assessee requested for interest on refund of the said balance amount of Rs.11,30,603/-. The assessee's claim for interest was denied by the Dy.Commissioner of Central Excise and also in appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In further appeal before CESTAT, CESTAT allowed the assessee's claim for interest under Section 11BB of the Act. The Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled to interest with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund by the department. The revenue has, therefore, filed the present appeal.
2 of 3
3
kambli
cexal-188-08
costs.
3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order allowing refund by an Appellate Authority is deemed an order under Section 11B(2) for the purpose of Section 11BB interest calculation.
Whether interest on delayed refund is payable from the date of the Appellate Authority's order or from the date of receipt of the refund application by the original authority.
Whether a substantial question of law arises from the CESTAT decision allowing interest on delayed refund.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-II
M/s. Sulaki Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
MOHIT S. SHAH
M. S. SANKLECHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
