TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Interest Liability for Delayed Refunds</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the interest liability on the refund amount. ... Delay in refund – interest - It is not the department’s case that the refund claim had been returned or rejected as pre-mature - As per the provisions of Section 11BB if any duty to be refunded under Section 11B(2) to any applicant is not’ refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under Section 11B(1) of that Section, there shall be paid to that applicant, interest at such rate, as may be notified by the Central Government on such duty, from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of said application till the refund of such duty - rightly allowed interest on the refund. Issues:1. Inclusion of installation charges in the assessable value for Central Excise Duty.2. Refund claim filed by the respondent.3. Interest liability of the department on the refund amount.Analysis:*Issue 1: Inclusion of installation charges in the assessable value for Central Excise Duty*The case revolved around the inclusion of installation charges in the assessable value for Central Excise Duty. The respondent, a manufacturer of photocopier machines, charged installation fees from customers, which the Revenue argued should be part of the assessable value. Various show cause notices were issued, with conflicting decisions by different authorities. The Assistant Commissioner initially held the installation charges as includible, while the Commissioner later allowed deductions, including the installation charges. Despite this, a subsequent show cause notice demanded excise duty for non-inclusion of installation charges. Eventually, the refund claim was filed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed interest from the date of filing the claim, as per Section 11BB.*Issue 2: Refund claim filed by the respondent*The respondent filed a refund claim on 15th January 1997 after paying the demanded amount under protest. The claim was eventually sanctioned on 6th March 2007. The Department argued that the claim was premature as the issue had not been decided until later dates. However, the Tribunal held that as per Section 11BB, the interest liability of the department starts after three months from the date of filing the application. Therefore, the interest was rightly allowed from 16th April 1997 till the payment date.*Issue 3: Interest liability of the department on the refund amount*The Tribunal emphasized the provisions of Section 11BB, stating that interest on the refund amount is applicable if the duty is not refunded within three months from the date of the application. As the refund claim was filed on 15th January 1997 and sanctioned on 6th March 2007, the interest liability of the department commenced from 16th April 1997. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly allowed interest from that date until the payment, in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the interest liability on the refund amount. The judgment clarified the application of Section 11BB in determining the department's interest obligations in cases of delayed refunds under Central Excise Duty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
