2017 (9) TMI 1541 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant denied interest on abated duty but granted for delayed refund; appeals decided accordingly.

M/s Prem Products Versus CCE, Agra

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim for interest on abated duty but allowed interest for the delayed refund beyond the three-month period. The ... Entitlement of interest - interest on abated duty - interest for delayed payment - Held that: - the duty paid by the appellant in terms of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity determination and collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 is required to pay in advance which appellant fail to do so, therefore, the interest is correctly paid by the appellant. Although, the abatement claims have been filed for that period, the appellant is not entitled to claim interest on the abated amount as there is no such provision. Interest for delayed refund - Held that: - the appellant is entitled for interest after three months from the date of filing of refund claim and till the date of sanctioning refund. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Rejection of interest claimed by the appellant on abated duty.2. Denial of payment of interest for delayed payment to the appellant.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of interest claimed on abated duty and denial of interest for delayed payment. The appellant did not pay duty as required by the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008, during May and June 2012. The duties were paid late with interest due to the machines being closed for over 15 days. Abatement claims were filed for May and June 2012, which were granted later. The appellant argued that since they were not required to pay duty for the abated period, they should not pay interest for that time. However, the Tribunal held that as per the rules, duty was to be paid in advance on the 5th day of the month, which the appellant failed to do. Therefore, the interest paid by the appellant was justified, and they were not entitled to claim interest on the abated amount as no provision allowed for it.2. The appellant also claimed interest for delayed refund. The abatement claims for May and June 2012 were filed in July and August 2012, respectively, and the refunds were sanctioned in November 2012, exceeding the three-month period for refund sanctioning. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India, where it was established that the appellant is entitled to interest after three months from the date of filing the refund claim until the refund is sanctioned. Therefore, the appellant was granted interest for the delayed refund in accordance with the legal precedent.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim for interest on abated duty but allowed interest for the delayed refund beyond the three-month period. The appeals were disposed of based on the aforementioned findings.