TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court dismisses pharmaceutical company's claim for interest on delayed rebate payment under Central Excise Act.</h1> <h3>Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Versus Union of India and Ors.</h3> The Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling against the pharmaceutical company's claim for interest on delayed payment of rebate claims under Section ... - Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of interest on delayed payment of rebate claims u/s 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944.Factual Matrix and Appeal Process:The petitioner, a pharmaceutical company, filed a writ petition appealing the disallowance of interest on delayed payment of rebate claims by the Ministry of Finance. The initial denial of rebate claims by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ujjain, was overturned by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Indore. Subsequently, the petitioner claimed interest on delayed payment, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, but allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals-I). The Revenue appealed this decision to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The matter was then taken up by the Ministry of Finance, which set aside the Ld. Commissioner's order and disallowed the interest claim.Interpretation of Section 11BB:The key question was whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on delayed payment of rebate claims u/s 11BB of the Act. The Supreme Court's interpretation clarified that interest is payable only after three months from the date of the refund application, not from the date of deposit. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument for equitable interest, citing the specific statutory provision. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that interest can only be awarded based on statutory provisions, agreements, or equitable considerations with a mandatory written demand.Conclusion:The Court, bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 11BB, found no merit in the petitioner's claim for interest on delayed payment of rebate claims and dismissed the writ petition. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
