Court rules in favor of Ford India in interest dispute over Special Excise Duty refund

The appeal involved M/s. Ford India Private Limited contesting the demand of interest under Section 11AB for a refund of Special Excise Duty obtained based on a false certificate. The lower appellate authority upheld the interest demand but vacated the penalty. The main issue was the sustainability of the interest demand. The court found that as the duty became payable before the Finance Bill, 2001, the interest demand was not valid. The appellants were not implicated in the fraud, leading to the penalty being vacated. The court set aside the lower authority's decision, allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal challenging demand of interest u/s 11AB for refund of Special Excise Duty obtained erroneously based on false certificate.

Summary:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Ford India Private Limited against the demand of interest u/s 11AB for obtaining a refund of Special Excise Duty (SED) based on a false certificate. The appellants had cleared cars availing exemption under Notification No. 5/1999-C.E. by producing certificates from the State Transport Authority that the cars were registered as taxis. Subsequently, it was discovered that one vehicle had been registered under a different class, leading to the realization that the refund was obtained erroneously. The buyer of the vehicle had forged the certificate, which was unknowingly presented to the Central Excise authority by the appellants. The lower appellate authority upheld the demand of interest u/s 11AB but vacated the penalty u/s 11AC. The main issue was whether the demand of interest was sustainable in law.

The appellants argued that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11AB exempt cases where duty became payable before 11-5-2001, which was the case for them as they received the refund on 19-1-2001. They contended that the demand of interest was not valid as the duty was not due after the said date. On the other hand, the department argued that sub-section (2) of Section 11AB applied since they discovered the fraud only on 29-8-2001. The department, however, could not specify the date from which interest should be computed for recovery if not from the date of erroneous refund.

After hearing both sides, it was concluded that the appellants were not involved in the fraud and, therefore, the penalty under Section 11AC was vacated. Regarding the demand of interest, it was held that as the duty became payable on 19-1-2001, before the assent of the Finance Bill, 2001 on 11-5-2001, the demand of interest affirmed by the lower appellate authority was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---