Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act on delayed refund, and whether the refund applications could be treated as incomplete so as to postpone the starting point for interest.
Analysis: Section 11B requires a refund claim to be made in the prescribed form with supporting documents establishing payment of duty and non-passing of incidence. Section 11BB fastens interest liability if refund ordered under Section 11B(2) is not made within three months from receipt of the application under Section 11B(1). On the record, the necessary duty payment documents were already filed, and the appellate authority had only required correlation of chassis and engine numbers from the existing documents and additional certification to reinforce that correlation. The revisional view that the applications were incomplete from inception was inconsistent with the record and the earlier appellate findings.
Conclusion: The applications were valid refund applications under Section 11B, and the petitioner was entitled to interest under Section 11BB from the expiry of three months after receipt of those applications. The denial of interest was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Interest under Section 11BB becomes payable when a valid refund application under Section 11B is not refunded within three months of its receipt, and the starting point is not deferred merely because further verification or correlation of already filed documents is later required.