TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority after following the due process of law did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant and rejected the appellants claims for interest on the belated refunds. 3. Ld Counsel appear on behalf of the appellant would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the lower authorities. It is the submission that the refund claims are allowed sanctioned but belatedly. It is the claim of the Ld Counsel that the Dept is liable to pay interest of the appellants on his belated sanction of refunds. He relies of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Ltd vs UOI -2012.27.STR.173(SC) for the broader proposition that any amount to be refun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of interest to the appellant. It is his submission that both the lower authorities were correct in coming to the conclusion that the refund claims filed under notification 15/2009 do not fall under the category of refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 and provisions of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act 1944 are not attracted. 6. We have considered the submission made at length by both sides and records. The only issue which needs our consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for interest on the refunds sanctioned belatedly. It is undisputed that the appellant had filed the refund of service tax paid on the services rendered to them in an SEZ unit. The said refund claim was filed as per Notification no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contrary to the spirit of the Board circulars is findings contrary to the spirit of both the circulars dtd 20th May, 2009 wherein the Board has categorically directed the formulation that the refund claim of the service tax paid on services rendered to SEZ units should be sanctioned within the maximum time of 30 days from the date of filing of refund claim and in any case beyond 45 days from the date of filing of the refund claim. Clear instructions of the board are not followed in the case in hand which is very evident from the delay which has occurred in sanctioning refund claim as indicted in Para 2 herein above. In our considered view, the time limit which has been given out in place by the Board needs to have been followed failing whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufactured by the supplier or dutiable services rendered by the service provider. In principle such goods/services when utilised for further manufacture or providing service which are dutiable already carry the duty paid component as a part of its price/value, and hence the duty payable on the ultimately manufactured goods/services rendered stands reduced to the extent of duty already paid on the inputs. Thus the duty paid on inputs by the supplier has already been actually received by the exchequer. Therefore, this contention is, to say the least, misconceived. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, admittedly the refund has been ordered under Rule 5 of the Rules and there was a delay in sanctionin....