TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices were issued to the respondent for rejecting the rebate claims on the grounds that they have availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 and availed the self re-credit of the amount of duty paid through PLA account in the succeeding months in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 65/2003-CE dated 06.08.2003. The respondent has availed the benefit of refund of duty paid through PLA by way of re-credit under section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also claimed rebate of duty under Section 11 B of the Act on the same duty of the exported goods which appears to be double claim of benefit, as refund granted by way of self-credit makes the goods exempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to grant the interest of rebate in pursuance of High Court and Supreme Court Order. The request of the respondent was rejected by the lower authority vide his impugned order dated 30.05.2011 by stating that the rebate became payable only after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.07.2010; that as per the provisions of Section 11 and 11BB ofthe .Act, no interest is payable as all the rebate claims are disposed off within the prescribed time limit mentioned in Section 11 A read with Section 11 AB of Act. 3. The Respondent filed appeal before commissioner(A) who allowed the appeal in favour of department. 3.1 Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these department preferred an appeal with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia reported in 2006(193) ELT 536(Guj.). (iii) Further, the said judgment dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s Welspun Trading Ltd, Kutch, was not accepted by the Department and a proposal for filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon`ble Supreme Court was forwarded to the Board on 19.10.2011. 4.2 The CESTAT, vide the Order No. A/ 1306/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 21.08.2012 held that since the first appellate authority had passed an order on the matter of rebate claim, the appeal lies with Joint Secretary in the Govt. of India and accordingly transferred the file to Joint Secretary in the Govt. of India. 4.3 During the meantime Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP No. 24277-24278 of 2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1944. This-issue is already decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. V/s UOI reported as 2011 -TIOL-105-SC-EX. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held as under: "8. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only abler an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision, there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment (See Cape Brandy Syndicate Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation & Ann: Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 8 SCC739 = (2010-TIOL-66-SC-IT). 10. .................... 11. .................. 12. ................. 13. ................. 14. In view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise. The rebate claims were sanctioned within a period of three months thereafter by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) and hence, no interest was payable. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the law has been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India and consequently no interference in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted. 3. The Supreme Court in its decision, in Ranbaxy (supra) considered the provisions of Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and held that Section 11BB lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three month....