Manufacturer wins interest dispute on Branded Chewing Tobacco exemption.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA ruled in favor of the Appellant, a manufacturer of Branded Chewing Tobacco, allowing interest under Section 11BB to be paid within two months from the date of the order. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 11BB are applicable to the case of exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, based on previous judgments and the binding effect of High Court decisions. The Appellant's appeal was allowed, emphasizing entitlement to interest under Section 11BB following judicial discipline and precedent.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of interest under Section 11BB on refund sanctioned to the Appellant.
- Applicability of Section 11BB in the case of exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the denial of interest under Section 11BB on a refund sanctioned to the Appellant by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant, a manufacturer of Branded Chewing Tobacco, claimed a refund under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund but did not pass any order on interest due on the refund. The Appellant requested interest under Section 11BB, which was denied by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Appellant argued that the provisions of Section 11BB are applicable as the Notification 32/99 does not restrict the application of Central Excise Law sections and rules. The Appellant cited a case where a similar situation entitled the assessee to interest under Section 11BB. The Department contended that a pending case before the Supreme Court could impact the decision, but no stay was granted on the High Court's order.

3. The Tribunal analyzed previous judgments, including the case of M/s. Amalgamated Plantations (P.) Ltd. Vs. UOI, where interest under Section 11BB was allowed for a refund claim under Notification 32/99. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision had a binding effect. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing interest under Section 11BB to be paid within two months from the date of the order.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant was entitled to interest under Section 11BB, following the judicial discipline and precedent set by previous judgments. The decision was based on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the binding effect of the High Court's orders. The Appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted.

5. The judgment was pronounced on 25 April 2022 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, with detailed analysis and references to legal provisions and previous court decisions to support the ruling in favor of the Appellant.

---