Assistant Commissioner directed to verify and release interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB within two months

The Gauhati HC directed the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST Division to verify and release interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within two months of receiving certified copy of the order. The court disposed of the writ petition by interfering with the impugned order dated 25.05.2024. The assessee was required to furnish an undertaking to reimburse the interest amount to the Department if revenue succeeds in the pending SLP. The petition was disposed of with directions for payment of verified interest amount.

---

---

Issues:
1. Claim of interest on delayed refund of excise duty under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999.
2. Interpretation of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding interest on delayed refunds.
3. Judicial precedent set by previous judgments on the entitlement to interest on delayed refunds.
4. Review petitions and appeals challenging decisions on interest payments on delayed refunds.
5. Direction to release interest amount subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought interest on the delayed refund of excise duty as per Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, which was rejected in an order dated 25.05.2024. The petitioners claimed interest amounting to Rs. 4,48,92,856, despite being entitled to the refund. Previous judgments, including Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd. case, established the right to interest under Section 11BB of the Act of 1944 on excise duty refunds.

2. The Division Bench's decision in the Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd. case clarified that Section 11B of the Act of 1944 did not preclude the claim for interest under the 1999 Notification. The Union of India's subsequent review petition and Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court did not alter this interpretation, keeping the legal question open.

3. Similar cases, such as Pan Parag India Ltd. and M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., further reinforced the entitlement to interest on delayed refunds. The judgments directed the determination and payment of interest within specific timeframes, subject to the pending Supreme Court decisions.

4. The Union of India challenged these decisions through writ appeals and review petitions, leading to a series of litigations. However, the courts consistently upheld the right to interest on delayed refunds, aligning with the principles established in earlier cases.

5. In the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by interfering with the impugned order, subject to the outcome of the pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The court directed the authorities to verify and release the interest amount to the petitioners within two months, contingent upon an undertaking to reimburse the amount if the Revenue succeeds in the SLP.

Overall, the judgment reiterated the legal precedent on interest payments on delayed refunds, emphasizing compliance with previous court decisions and the pending Supreme Court proceedings for final resolution.

---