2018 (12) TMI 922 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Interest on delayed refund – relevant date – whether the date of refund application as required in Section 11B of the Customs Act has to be the date of application on which it has been filed or it has to be the date on which the deficiencies in the application got corrected?
–
Held that:- When even read with Section 11BB of Central Excise Act that for the payment of interest after three months from the date of receipt of refund application, the applicant shall be entitled for the interest at the rate as prescribed. The provision is nowhere expressing about “application” to be called so only in case it is supported by the requisite documents – The law has been settled that the fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision.
–
It is also apparent from record that the deficiency, whatever, noticed in the application was informed to the applicant after 15 days. It is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
adjudication proposing the demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 74,89,162/- which was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original dated 22.09.2009 alongwith the interest and the penalties. However when the matter was appealed before this Tribunal, vide stay Order dated 28.04.2011, appellant was directed to deposit the entire demand of the aforesaid duty. In a writ petition No. 5314/2011 challenging the said stay order before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore, this Tribunal vide Order dated 22.11.2011 was directed to decide the Application for stay dispensing with the requirements of pre-deposit. Subsequently, vide Order dated 05.12.2012, to the Miscellaneous Application Tribunal directed the appellant to make the pre-deposit of ₹ 40 lakhs within 4 weeks of the said Order. Further, vide Final Order of this Tribunal dated 24.01.2017, the Appeal against the recovery of aforesaid Central Excise duty was allowed in favour of the appellant thereby setting aside the adjudica
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Act is also emphasised. It is submitted that grounds of rejecting the contention praying for interest alongwith the amount of refund has been rejected on unreasonable grounds as that of the want of the copy of the Final Order of this Tribunal. It is submitted that irrespective the appellant himself provided the copy as demanded on 04.01.2018 that the same was available with the Department. Otherwise also, the Department had to ask for the deficiency, if any, within two days thereof. Decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case Union of India Vs. Hamdard (WAQF) Laboratories 2016 (333) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) has been impressed upon. Finally praying for date of application to be considered as 15.03.2018, the Appeal in hand is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these arguments it is submitted by the Department that though the application for refund was filed on 15.03.2017 but it was an incomplete application for want of documents as that of the copy of Final Order of this Tribunal entit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
adjudicated herein is as to whether the date of refund application as required in Section 11B of the Customs Act has to be the date of application on which it has been filed or it has to be the date on which the deficiencies in the application got corrected. For the purpose, Section 11BB is relevant to be looked into, it reads as follows: 11BB. Interest on delayed refunds – if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, [not below five percent and not exceeding thirty percent per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette] on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: It makes it clear when even read wi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
usal thereof shows that it is a clarificatory decision specifically with respect to the refund of pre- deposit requiring such pre-deposits to be made within three months from the date of the Tribunal Orders. As mentioned in para 4 of the Circular, the word used therein is that such pre-deposit must be returned within three months rather from the date of the Order passed by the appellate Tribunal. The date of the said Order is 24.01.2017. The Department was well representing before the Tribunal for the said Appeal. 6. It is also apparent from record that the deficiency, whatever, noticed in the application was informed to the applicant after 15 days. It is Department s acknowledged case that the application was filed on 15.03.2017 and the copy of the Final Order was asked from the applicant vide the Department s letter dated 30.03.2017. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Hamdard (WAQF) Laboratories (supra) has clarified that it is obligatory on the part of the revenue to inform defic
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =