2024 (6) TMI 387 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT denies refund of interest paid on reversed credit under retrospective Rule 6 amendment but allows interest on excess credit

M/s. Grasim Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore

CESTAT Bangalore rejected appellant's claim for refund of interest paid on proportionate credit reversed under retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR ... Refund of interest as per Section 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to avail the benefit of Retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004 - interest on the excess credit after expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund i.e., from 17.9.2011 till 21.11.2019. Refund of interest as per Section 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to avail the benefit of Retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004 - HELD THAT:- The claim of the appellant that even though the amount of interest has been paid in compliance with Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2010 giving retrospective effect by amending Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 allowing the assesses to reverse proportionate credit with applicable interest to settle the litigation saddled with huge amount of demands on 8% / 10% of the value of the exempted product, the refund of the said interest still be allowed in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal dated 18.07.2019 and the Tribunal cannot the examine the said issue in the present Appeals. The said contention of the appellant deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that taking note of their compliance with the requirement to avail the facility of retrospective amendment, the adjudicating authority in the denovo adjudication in the year 2011 recorded payment of said interest and passed the order in favour of the appellant in setting aside the demand of 8%/10% value of the product following the statutory mandate of retrospective amendment incorporated in Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2010 where the condition include reversal of proportionate credit with interest. No mention in the said amendment on the fact of utilisation or otherwise of the credit availed. Therefore, any judgment/Order contrary to the said statutory provisions be per incuriam and cannot be a binding precedent - Besides, no evidence has been brought on record by the Appellant that they had filed refund claim for the interest paid on the proportionate credit reversed after the de novo order in 2011 along with the refund claim for excess credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- not allowed to them by the Commissioner. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, to render complete justice, has a bounden duty to ascertain the facts in its proper perspective and dispose the case accordingly. Interest on the excess credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- after expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund i.e., from 17.9.2011 till 21.11.2019 - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner in the impugned order dated 21.4.2011 observed that after appropriation of the proportionate CENVAT credit of Rs.91,82,820/-, the balance CENVAT credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- reversed by the appellant on 6.11.2007 cannot be restored as they have not followed proper procedure by filing the refund claim under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. Consequently, the appellant filed the refund claim on 17.6.2011, therefore, the appellants are entitled to interest on expiry of three months from the date of filing of the refund claim in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT]. The impugned orders are modified by upholding the rejection of the refund of interest amount of Rs.88,22,475/- and setting aside the order denying interest on the refund application for Rs.1,00,10,808/- for the period after expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund. Appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to refund of interest amount of Rs.88,22,475/- paid on the CENVAT credit of Rs.83,10,886/- reversed as per Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2010.2. Interest on the excess credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- after the expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund i.e., from 17.09.2011 to 21.11.2019.Summary:Issue 1: Refund of Interest Amount of Rs.88,22,475/-The appellants had availed CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable products during 2000-2004. A show-cause notice was issued demanding Rs.15,16,35,274/- under Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004. The appellants reversed the entire credit of Rs.1,91,93,628/- under protest. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-determination in light of the retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004 by the Finance Act, 2010. The appellants paid Rs.88,22,475/- as interest on the proportionate credit of Rs.83,10,886/- and sought recredit of the balance amount. The Commissioner appropriated the proportionate credit and interest but denied the recredit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- for not following the procedure u/s 11B of CEA, 1944.The Tribunal in its order dated 18.07.2019 directed re-credit of the excess reversal and opined that the interest of Rs.88,22,475/- was not warranted. However, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund without interest. The appellants claimed that the interest paid was not justified as the credit was reversed prior to utilization. The Tribunal held that the payment of interest was in compliance with Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2010, and thus, the refund of Rs.88,22,475/- was not allowed.Issue 2: Interest on Excess Credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/-The appellants filed a refund claim for Rs.1,00,10,808/- on 17.06.2011, which was rejected initially but later sanctioned without interest. The Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to interest on the refund amount from the expiry of three months from the date of the refund claim (17.09.2011) to the date of payment (21.11.2019), in line with the Supreme Court judgment in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund of the interest amount of Rs.88,22,475/- but allowed interest on the refund of Rs.1,00,10,808/- from the date of expiry of three months from the filing of the refund claim. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.