M\/s Imperial Auto Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Gurugram
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1354 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 17-4-2018
Appeal No. E\/60071\/2018 – A\/62240\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
\nShri. Amrinder Singh, Advocate- for the appellant
\nShri. G.S. Dhillon, AR- for the respondent
\nPer Ashok Jindal:
\nThe appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein interest on delayed refund has been rejected by the authorities below.
\n2. The facts of the case are that on persuasion of the department is that the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit. The appellant reversed an amount of Rs. 5,92,815-\/ under protest and filed the r<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n he appeal of the appellant before me is with regard to the claiming interest on the delayed refund of Rs. 5,92,815\/- after three months from the date of filling the refund claim i.e. 22.01.2014 till its realization. Both the authorities below have rejected the claim of interest on the premise that as refund claim has been sanctioned in pursuant to the order of the Commissioner (A), therefore, they are not entitled to claim interest for the earlier period. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tories Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, in that circumstances, the appeal is to be dismissed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Imperial Auto Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, GurugramCentral Excise2018 (5) TMI 1354 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMICESTAT CHANDIGARH – ATDated:- 17-4-2018Appeal No. E\/60071\/2018 – A\/62240\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. Amrinder Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. G.S. Dhillon, AR- for the respondent Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against … Continue reading “M\/s Imperial Auto Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Gurugram”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11898","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11898\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC), therefore, the appellant is entitled for claim of interest<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
\n6. After appreciating the arguments advanced by both the sides, I find that the short issue involved in the matter is that whether the appellant is entitled to claim interest after three months from the date of filling the refund claim till its realization or not?
\n7. The same issue was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Supra), wherein, it has been held that the assesseee is entitled to claim interest on delayed refund after three months from the date of filling the refund claim till its realization. The sole contention of the l<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n